Is it better to do good or to stop evil?

[Arravis]

Is it better to do good or to stop evil?

I've been brainstorming about an important NPC I'm going to introduce in my campaign. She is a one-armed monk of the Yellow Rose, an order of Illmater, god of suffering.

The basic concept I'm struggling with is weather she'd seek revenge on the evil people that took her arm or if she would seek to help those around her that she sees suffering. It can be argued that revenge is simply a selfish thing that is mostly for the mental comfort of the victim, but of course there is the issue of justice and how much harm those evil people are causing on others...

Which one affects more lives, her helping the poor, sick, and suffering around her or her bringing to justice those that wronged her, therefor stopping whatever wrongs they'll continue to do?

It's a tough one...

 

[Negative Zero]

well, one could argue that stopping evil is doing good. and therefore in that capacity, doing good, being the larger umbrella is more improtant.

however, with regard to vengence, there's nothing there that falls into either category. vengence calls into question the individual motives of a person, and one of the essential aspects of good is the underlying motivation for doing it.

no matter how your monk tries to rationalise it, revenge will still be revenge, and not justice. (well, at least not as far as the wide world is concerned.) the real question is, is she wise enough to realise this?

~NegZ

 

[Mercule]

It's best to kill 'em all and let the deity of your choice sort things out.

 

[the Jester]

I'd say most monks would seek to help others, but that's just my opinion.

In answer to the larger question... well, that's a good question. For which I have no answer, but will pose another question: can evil done for a good cause be good? (See Sepulchrave's story hour for a discussion of summoning devils and demons for good cause.)

 

[Kai Lord]

For which I have no answer, but will pose another question: can evil done for a good cause be good?

No. Evil is evil. The ends don't justify the means. In D&D terms, this would at best be neutrality.

 

[clark411]

I've always understood Illmater to focus upon suffering for the benefit of others. A simplification perhaps to say the best, but well- simple answers are all I can offer. heh

I'd put Illmater followers more along the lines of defending people without concern to the physical dangers of doing so. Moving into the lines of "without concern of the spiritual dangers" is possible, as is moving into the lines of "defending in an offensive manner", but moving both ways is really pushing into the outskirts of the faith. Something splinter cults / faiths of Illmater would be based upon.

Also, yah- I agree, evil is evil is evil. Doing good in an evil way is evil or at least not good. Revenge is passionate retaliation for what is done to oneself- it's vigilantism. Vengence is just retribution for a crime. One is selfish, one is selfless. Focusing kicking the butts of those who have harmed you is pretty much the former, even if it's masked in claims of being towards the latter. Even monks can't really get away from bias when they've had an arm taken away.

Well, maybe when they're outsiders and get DR n stuff. ^_^

 

[Emiricol]

Is it better to do good or to stop evil?

There will always be evil, yet there is never enough good in the world. So, I would say it is better to do good.

Of course, I think revenge is a more powerful emotion than some abstract notion of altruism.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

As others have said "do good by stopping evil."

It's a bit glib but the division between the two is also somewhat artificial and deserving of the response. Also, the question is such that any response will be incomplete. What action will do the most good will generally depend upon the possibilities available at a given time.

Is there a gifted young warrior falling in with the wrong crowd due to unfortunate circumstances? Taking him in and mentoring him--treating him like family might be the best thing to do.

Is a vampire feasting on a young girl right outside the tavern window? Grabbing a cross and a stake then jumping out the window to oppose him might be better than giving the depressed guy at the bar an encouraging word.

As a character motivation, however, it's important to take the abilities of your character into account. You're going to be playing a monk so that necessitates a certain amount of stopping evil--after all the abilities that you have trained your life to gain are mostly focussed in that area (one doesn't become a black belt in order to be better at counselling troubled youth). Now that could be understood as seeking vengeance or it could be that your character's experiences (losing her arm) taught her that force is necessary to stop evil and that understanding is not enough. However, your character is a warrior and her motivation needs to account for that.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

IMO

Given what I know of the god and the way monks are traditionally depicted vengeance would not be a motivation.

She might still try to take them out if they were an active threat to the community and she could easily do it, but otherwise it just seems to me that her efforts to do good and avoid evil would be better put to other causes.

In particular she might seek to oppose them indirectly. If her enemies have a stranglehold on food production, perhaps she will concont a scheme to get free or more freely distributed food into the city. And then use her martial prowress to protect the food.

That way she is both doing good and opposing evil. Which would be the route she should always seek to take. Again, given what I know of the deity.

Think more Ghandi and less Rambo.

Also evil done for a good cause can be good, but the emphasis is on 'can be' that and just because the action itself turned out to be good, does not mean that the action was good for a good character to take.

 

[Crass]

Arbitrarily saying one or the other would be incorrect, without placing the situation in its proper context. You're about to introduce an NPC into your campaign, and it follows an ostensibly good deity. How are you portraying other "good" NPCs in the campaign? Are you establishing a precedent for how your PCs can/should act?

If it was me playing this NPC, and based only upon the information you'd presented, I'd attempt to do more good rather than stop the evil. The rationalisation behind this is that she is in an order of a deity, one of Who's tenets is suffering. If she were to go out and attempt to get revenge, I'd ensure that she intended to atone for her actions. (Luckily we're dealing with a monk rather than a cleric here... it gives here more leniency. If she WERE a cleric, definitely take it and turn the other cheek). Just my $0.02