Is killing something Good an inherently Evil act?

[Shemeska]

On the flip side, is killing an Evil thing an inherently Good act? Let's say there's this Yugoloth. And I kill it. It's not some redeemed soul or some reformed spirit -- it's still Evil, and is actin in the interests of Evil as I kill it. I have no intention of carrying on with it's evil, but I didn't know what it was doing, so it wasn't like I was trying to thwart his plans, either. It was an agent and representative of Evil, Corruption, Maliciousness, and All Those Horrible Things, and I snuffed out it's existence. It was going to burn down an orphanage, but I didn't know that 9though I do know that Yugoloths are inherently pretty much Evil creatures), and I put a chiv in it.

Did I do a good thing?

*ears twitch in annoyance*

"Well damn, talk about going small scale for a change. Only a single orphanage burnt down? I find it much for satisfying to kill the local cleric and slowly pervert the populace, or bring down a plague and offer to heal them all in exchange for their kids. That sort of thing tends to be much more satisfying. Good thing you killed him, prevents that sort of wussy evil from staying within the ranks. You've helped out the cause of abstract evil, thank you."

Now, what if that 'loth had struck a bargain to save 1 million innocents in exchange for the souls of that orphanage's innocents? Good can come out of evil, depending on how you look at it. Killing him when you didn't know what he was doing might have saved some lives but condemned millions. Probably not 99.9% of the time, but still.

But now it's all about intention in many ways. Beings of good kill beings of good. Aasimon/Angels die by the millions at the behest of their patron deities or pantheons over minor issues of theology. The upper planes as a whole however just don't go into a genocidal nightmarish war to end all wars like the lower planes do; their love of good overrides their gulfs of opinion over the law/chaos issue. Those Devas will kill because they have to in the name of their deity, or because it will promote a greater good, they may not enjoy it though. A fiend is going to enjoy the act itself. Baatezu will enjoy tyranny as they conquer and enslave and torture, Tanar'ri will enjoy it when they butcher anything within reach regardless of it being friend or foe, and the 'loth will make Judas look like Mother Theresa as it lives a life of good while posing as a mortal only to then sell out its allies and slowly kill them and do naughty things to the corpse while their kids watch.

 

[Shemeska]

Can I still call myself a Defender of Good if I'm defending the Local Chapter of the Burn Orphans Cuz It's Funny Society (Darn BOCIFS!)?

According to my good friend Bob the Mezzoloth, chapter president of the local BOCIFS, yes you can call yourself a defender of good. Just don't be around next wednesday, that's BBQ night at the BOCIFS, if you know what I mean. Or am I telling you this just so you'll be there because it was really monday that was BBQ night. Or am I just confusing you so that you'll eventually pass out from lack of sleep and then we can... etc.

 

[Kunimatyu]

It's important to have breaks from the typical Good vs. Evil stuff. Good versus Good can be interesting, and I'm also a fan of Good vs. Cool. In the recent finale of my game, the players thwarted the attempts of a Couatl to annihilate a city of thousands. The Couatl was still Lawful Good, not fallen or misguided; destroying the capital city would prevent a continent-wide war, but the players(all of Good alignment) were too attached to the city to see it destroyed, even at the risk of war. Was it a Good act? I'm not sure, but it certainly wasn't a cookie-cutter evil one.

Heh. Moral conflicts are fun.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's important to have breaks from the typical Good vs. Evil stuff. Good versus Good can be interesting, and I'm also a fan of Good vs. Cool. In the recent finale of my game, the players thwarted the attempts of a Couatl to annihilate a city of thousands. The Couatl was still Lawful Good, not fallen or misguided; destroying the capital city would prevent a continent-wide war, but the players (all of Good alignment) were too attached to the city to see it destroyed, even at the risk of war. Was it a Good act? I'm not sure, but it certainly wasn't a cookie-cutter evil one.

"Every time you hear a child cry, know that it is you who caused it. Every time a dragon burns down a village, remember that their lives are on your conscious. I could have prevented this. I could have made the world a better place. But by killing me, you have made evil that much more powerful. You do not have my anger. But you and every creature in your world have my sympathies -- by your damnable actions, you have allowed a demon to be freed, a woman to be raped, a halfling to be starved, a town to be killed by their friends and family animated as undead...it is your fault that these will happen. I have no mercy for your wicked, selfish souls."

 

[Khorod]

General applicable thoughts:

* There's a difference between an evil act and an evil reputation. You can commit a non-evil deed that damns you as a villain in the eyes of history.

* Paladins and other exemplars of virtue cannot seem to be evil. If a paladin got into this mess, they probably could not get out of it without some atonement and holy-image damage control.

 

[Zappo]

I don't think that even D&D morals have absolutes this simple. It depends on the circumstances.

Obviously, there are only limited circumstances where killing a celestial would not be an Evil act, even if it is not unconceivable. OTOH, there are plenty of circumstances where killing a fiend would not be a Good act - fiends killing each other in the Blood War, for example.

So, it is much easier for the murder of a fiend to be Neutral than the murder of a celestial. Killing a celestial out of hatred is undoubtedly Evil; killing a fiend out of hatred is arguably Neutral.

This asymmetry is due to the fact that killing is inherently Evil. Fairly often in D&D, and sometimes in the real world, there are circumstances that make it Neutral or Good - but killing by itself is an Evil action. There is an offset, so to speak. As a result, it is much easier for the murder of a fiend to be Neutral than the murder of a celestial. The Good you're doing (killing a fiend) can be offset by the Evil of the killing itself, and by your motivations. But if you kill a celestial, you're throwing Evil (killing) on top of other Evil (killing a celestial). It'd take some pretty weird motivations to offset that.

Whoa, I hope I'm not being too confusionary.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

The killing of enemy combatants is an inherently Neutral act-- which is why the Blood War is never responsible for the redemption of fiends.

By your spoilerish example, Good Outsiders are enemies of those who would preserve the Material Plane, and are active combatants by nature of their very existence. (This is a slippery slope waiting to happen-- I would only allow this reasoning in a world where this is a demonstrable facet of the cosmology.) Killing them is a Neutral act-- though I'm stuck on whether or not Paladins can do it; do they not gain their powers by service to Good Outsiders (with Divine Rank)? However, even if Paladins would lose their status through this act, I do not think they would become Evil.

On the other hand, a Neutral Good Druid could snuff them out by the thousands and never suffer an alignment ding. Of course, by their own inclinations, they should prefer to wipe out fiends-- and if they make a habit of targetting angels when fiends are valid, viable targets, they might start suffering. I don't allow Exalted or Vile characters, since I disagree vehemently with their view of alignment, but I would allow an Exalted defender of the Material to kill Good Outsiders, as long as they had tried every non-violent means at their disposal to get them to go home and stay there.

This interpretation allows for even trickier moral dilemmas than you're offering here, though: a through-and-through Good character, a bastion of moral purity, is sworn to defend the Material Plane against intrusion by Outsiders. Whether or not to kill a Deva seems an obvious choice, here... the question is, will they ally with an ancient red dragon to do so?

An army of celestials is on the march, determined to subdue, occupy, and eventually abscond with the territory of a Good kingdom. At the same time, a cabal of necromancers and assassins has decided they have to destroy the kingdom to save it. Obviously, a Good, Materially-allied character must oppose both... but which takes priority? Which do they attack first? Will they ally temporarily with the other side? What if they can't oppose both-- thwarting one faction will guarantee the other's success. Which side do they choose?

Even better... an army of fiends has the exact same plan in regard to the kingdom of the worst tyrant your world has ever known. What are your Good characters going to do about it? What can they do about it?

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

This asymmetry is due to the fact that killing is inherently Evil.
...
As a result, it is much easier for the murder of a fiend to be Neutral than the murder of a celestial.

Leaving aside our rather obvious disagreement about the morality of killing... is killing an exemplar (alignment-bound Outsider) the same as killing a sentient, free-willed mortal? Outsiders have thoughts and feelings, but their capacity for self-determination is, at least, severely constrained, and is often assumed to be non-existent. Celestials do not choose to be Good, nor do Fiends choose Evil.

One commonly-used criteria of personhood is free will. Is the killing of an entity that lacks this trait the same as killing a man?

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

I guess killing a good creature is assumed to be evil if there was evil intent. Accidents happen, of course. But at the same time I think good people are capable of doing evil acts (in the heat of the moment or due to a lapse in judgment).

 

[Romnipotent]

Argh gray issues!
If the arrival of its causing the existence you want to maintain, to be ripped apart, then killing it wont do a thing. Even though you're acting for the GOOD of the material plane, it doesn't solve the problem.
Tell the Deva whats going down, send them back, and tell them to message you somehow and you'll have a trans dimensional conference call.

Its evil, its good, but most of all its ineffective.