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

[I'm A Banana]

Exactly. Evil can fight Evil.

I would kind of disagree with this take on the Blood War, though.

It's not about Evil. It's about Law and Chaos. Evil isn't fighting Evil...evil is a side concern. They're not trying to end evil (so they're not fighting against evil), they're trying tend a different kind of evil (so they're fighting against another kind).

When a devil kills a demon, it's not fighting evil, it's fighting Chaos. When a lemure is killed by a Hordling, it's not fighting evil, it's fighting FOR evil.

In other words, simply killing evil things doesn't = "fight evil" in my head.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In other words, simply killing evil things doesn't = "fight evil" in my head.

But does that mean that you're divorcing the act from the intent of the act?

If someone does something we might objectively consider evil, but his intent is good, is it an evil act?

-Hyp.

 

[delericho]

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).

My thoughts exactly.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But does that mean that you're divorcing the act from the intent of the act?

If someone does something we might objectively consider evil, but his intent is good, is it an evil act?

Well, I was more referring to the idea that Fighting Evil isn't just throwing punches at evil things, but it is ideologically opposing the very fact that they are Evil, denying them the ability to be evil and be unmolested, living happily in that evil. To me, fighting evil implies destroying the very concept of Evil itself, whenever possible, not just beating up a goblin.

To answer the Q, it is an evil act regardless of the intent. The intent still matters, and can affect whether or not there is an alignment change or possible atonement, but the act is what carries the weight of the alignment. Fer'instance, it is Rape that is evil, no matter how positive your justification is ("If I punish them like THIS, maybe they'll learn their lesson!")

 

[Li Shenron]

A simple peasant with a heart of gold, that never actually had to fight before in her life, and is unable to do so perhaps out of fear, is still Good even if she doesn't fight evil.

Someone who surrenders to violence because he doesn't want to be violent itself can still be Good.

A priest that tries to pacifically convert evil people to good, is Good.

-----------

Evil individuals can fight against a greater evil for the common good, but still remain Evil inside.

Evil individuals can fight other evil individuals for evil purposes. May achieve a net good result for the others, but they're still Evil.

And so on..

 

[VirgilCaine]

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

If you consider continually risking your life to destroy Evil things that other people aren't as well-equipped to fight instead of retiring to a well-guarded townhouse to live in luxury when you have enough money to do that a personal sacrifice, then you can be Good and fight Evil.
But you don't have to be. A pious soul who gives money to people who ask for it and time to his church and neighbors he doesn't know is Good.

 

[DM_Matt]

Pacifists can fight evil.

You don't have to be violent to fight. MLK and Gandhi were pacifists without being pansies.

Pacifism doesn't equal inaction.

Fight the power can mean vote and stay in school, not necessarily burn baby burn.

Pacifists can expose evil contradictions in societies or power structures that have good norms that in some ssense agree with those pacifists goals, and include legal or informal limits on how far the government can go in clamping down on dissent. There were very good reasons for Americans and British to give thme what they want. A lot of what our societies' believe in was quite consistant with what they were asking for. Also, the govenrment had far less leeway in simply crushing opposition.

In a truly evil society, people like Ghandi and King would have been casually shot or disappeared.

Ghandi suggested that the Jews of Germany should use his strategy against the Nazis. That would have been so ineffective that it would be functionally the same thing as not fighting evil.

 

[Nifft]

In a truly evil society, people like Ghandi and King would have been casually shot or disappeared.

Yeah. Pacifism requires both Good societal norms and a free (and politically secure) press.

Cheers, -- N

 

[IcyCool]

A couple of my favorite quotes:

All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.

But there is another kind of evil that we must fear the most, and that is the indifference of good men."

 

[Wombat]

It is all a matter of intentionality, as Pierre Abelard would remind us.

Do you kill beings because you wish to do good and you are obviously doing a service by doing so? Then you are being good.

Do you kill beings because you like the feel of blood and the crunch of bodies? Then even if you are killing evil beings, you are not good, merely a different form of evil.

If you never fight an evil creature because you feel the way of violence is wrong, you are being good.

If you never fight an evil creature because you are afraid you might get hurt, then you are not being good.

Intentionality is all.