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

[Raloc]

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.

Bingo (emphasis mine)! This is the core bit of why I think the whole "Babymurderer Paladinson" (Pal20/Epic BabyMurd 5) is kind of crazy when people let their paladin characters detect evil on everything and go around murdering "evil" people and creatures for no good reason.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Neither necessary nor sufficient.

One needn't look to the blood war for examples of individuals who, though they fight evil are not good themselves. History is replete with examples of this and literature has even more. In Phil Foglio's webcomic Girl Genius, for instance, Baron Von Wolfenbach fights evil quite effectively, but it would be difficult to classify him as good.

Similarly, I don't believe that it is necessary to fight evil in order to be good. In the D&D cosmology, for instance, the newest lantern archon may never fire a light ray in anger or take any other step to fight evil, but he is still good. That said, I think that when the right circumstances arise, a good person would fight evil, and, it he (or she) backed down from the fight, he would not be good anymore (or perhaps would reveal that he was never really good in the first place). Fighting evil is not a necessary condition for being good, however, because those circumstances are not universal.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Based on “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” I'd have to vote that it is at least necessary.

Hrm, doesn't that quote actually define a catagory of good men who aren't fighting evil? I mean, they may not be being very effectively good, but they are good men right there in the quote.

That said, I think that when the right circumstances arise, a good person would fight evil, and, it he (or she) backed down from the fight, he would not be good anymore (or perhaps would reveal that he was never really good in the first place).

While I agree that abstaining from a fight against evil is not (generally) a good or even neutral act, I'd be leary of defining someone's allignment by such an incident. Can you be a good coward? A good person with bad perspective?

 

[WayneLigon]

Given the terms as defined, neither.

I think that part of being good means, given the opportunity and ability, that you must oppose evil in some way. Not nessesarily physical combat but in ways that evil is, nevertheless, abridged.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I voted required but not sufficient, but I was assuming an abstract and broad definition of evil. For example, I would consider feeding the poor fighting fighting evil, even though it includes no smashing in the heads of evil people.

Which was why I gave a provisional definition of fighting evil.

Feeding the poor is not fighting evil as I propsed the question, though asking why the poor have no food might be. But I can see how if one is inclined to anthopomorphize the ills of the world, doing good without fighting evil would be an impossibility.

 

[Aaron L]

Necessary but not sufficient. You can't really claim to be Good if you see a mugging or a murder happening but do nothing to help the victim, or witness a bully picking on someone and don't do anything to stop it. If you do nothing but feel bad about it later you're a normal person and Neutral. Neutral people help others based on personal relationships, Good people help anyone and everyone in need.

But then if all you ever do is stop random acts of Evil you happen to come across you aren't necessarily really Good ether. You have to actively work to help those in need and in trouble, and fight against Evil (fighting Evil doesn't need to mean going out and Killing Evil monsters/people, it means working to stop injustice, ending oppression and impoverishment and misery, and doing Good works like donating food and/or money to the needy.)

Remember, Good is caring for the well-being of others, which includes their mental as well as physical well-being. That is why I absolutely do not believe truly Good people can be consistently mean jerks, because it shows a total lack of regard for other peoples feelings, which is not Good at all (its selfish and Neutral if you just don't care about making others feel bad, and it's Evil if you actively take delight in inflicting misery on others.)

People who donate large portions of their income to charity are Good. People who worked in the Underground Railroad were Good. People who go to third world countries to help starving children are Good. Voluntary firefighters are Good. Those of us who sit at home and feel bad about people less fortunate than ourselves but do nothing to make a difference about it are Neutral, no matter how Good we would like to think we are.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Based on “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” I'd have to vote that it is at least necessary.

Depends on your definition of "fighting," then, doesn't it?

I haven't read one person on this thread, including all the ones who (like me) voted neither, saying that you don't have to *do* good things to be good. Burke's definition of "do[ing] nothing" wasn't restricted to "fighting evil." Aiding sufferers, spreading political awareness, and contributing to a community's are all good acts that would indeed assist the triumph of evil if they ceased, assuming that evil is an active force. But they're not "fighting evil" in the strict sense of the word, unless we're talking about "evils" rather than "Evil," and one assumes that aiding the sick is "fighting [an] evil" (illness), charity is "fighting [an] evil" (poverty), and so on.

 

[the Jester]

Neither. One must perform good deeds to be good; fighting evil is potentially a good deed, but not necessarily, and it is not the only good deed.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I voted neither neccessary nor sufficient.

The "Sufficient" has been amply covered by the example of the Blood War.

The Neccesary? It is entirely possible to live a good life, doing good deeds, without encountering evil to oppose...not likely, but possible.

 

[airwalkrr]

If fighting against evil and solely evil would be sufficient for being good, then lots of villains could be described as evil since it is not unusual for villains to prey on those just as evil as themselves. Perhaps they live in an evil world where good is rare and the only people to destroy are evil. It makes them no less evil to do so.