Is killing something Good an inherently Evil act?

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well, he couldn't very well have stopped it himself now, could he?

 

[John Morrow]

With the caveat that it depends on how morality works in your game:

Let's say there's this Deva. And I kill it. It's not an oh-so-cliche fallen angel, nor is it a misguided spirit -- it is still Good, and it is acting in the interests of Good as I kill it. I have no intention of fullfilling what it was doing...I don't even know what it was doing, so I really can't. It was an agent and representative of Goodness, Kindness, Compassion, and All Those Wonderful Things, and I snuffed out it's existence. It was going to save drowning puppies, but I didn't know that (though I do know that Devas are inherently pretty much Good creatures), and I put a chiv in it.

Did I do a bad thing?

Unless you had some reason to suspect that a creature like that would make a mistake and actually do something Evil, then yes. Was it Evil? That depends on the motivations. It may only be Neutral if it were done out of self interest rather than cruelty or malice.

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 (though I do know that Yugoloths are inherently pretty much Evil creatures), and I put a chiv in it.

Did I do a good thing?

Unless the setting has harmless Evil creatures, yes. You can assume that an evil creature will eventually get around to burning down an orphanage (or something equally awful) if you just let it go. The only other exception is if the setting allows easy alignment shifting and redemption of Evil creatures of the sort in question is possible or likely.

Spoiler

Long-Winded Spoiler Explanation: Because according to the Blood War, fiends kill things that are Evil all the time, and yet remain Evil...so how is killing something that is Good different?

Spoiler

Because being Good or Evil is not simply about helping or hurting the people on your own team. Good and Evil are defined by how Good and Evil people treat the innocent commoners and other sentient creatures. They are not simply flip sides of the same thing or two arbitrary teams. In fact, I'd argue that if you are simply treating them as two morally equivalent teams, you are missing the point of those alignments.

It's on the verge of collapse, with more planar creatures coming through each day. No one knows what will happen when it collapses...it's not nessecarily the End of the World, but it's definately going to change the world forever. Arrayed on one side is the Grand Church, which sees this as the process of the Coming of the Gods -- basically, the more holes there are in the fabric of the material plane, the closer everyone is to uniting with the heavens above, which is definately a Good Thing. On the other side is a loose coalition of fey and dragons who, intrinsically tied to the Material Plane, don't want that Comong to happen. They want to mend the holes and stop Outsiders from coming through. This includes demons and devils, but also includes Devas and Fiends.

Is the leadership of the Grand Church Good? Do they continue to have the capacity to cast spells through Good divine power? Do the deities of the setting want to bring about the collapse? Do your Good deities make mistakes? What's the motivation for the Fey and Dragons for stopping them?

So in the PC's home village, there is a conflict between the local dragon-witch and the local priest of the Grand Church. The dragon-witch's friend, a Guardian Naga, is the town's spirit protector, and has defended the town against the coming of fiends, but also has destroyed the Good outsiders she has come accross, usually with little warning. The idea is that the Good Outsiders would want to hasten the Coming of the Gods, and don't want to heal the Material Plane. But are the dragons and fey inherently evil (or even inherently non-good) because they want to keep the Material Plane intact, and thus keep the people from what may be Heaven on Earth? Can you have a good alignment and not want to destroy the world in all it's evil?

It sounds a lot like the Fey and Dragons are being Neutral. They are not acting out of malice towards the Good Outsiders, nor are they being cruel. But they do seem to be acting out of selfish reasons (protecting the status quo and their turf) rather than making self-sacrifices to help others (in the big scheme of things), which the RAW describes as a characteristic of being Good. The only exception might be if they have genuine doubt that the end of the world would be a net Good, at which point that raises the question of why the Grand Church, their Good deities, and the Good Outsiders are trying to bring it about.

Remember, D&D is has three alignments on the Good to Evil scale, Good, Neutral, and Evil. Neutral is neither altruistic nor cruel. It simply cares about its own little slice of the world and the people and things it likes. In fact, what you are describing is pretty much how I see the difference between Neutral Druids in my setting and the Clerics that are Good or Evil. The Druids are all about preserving the world and its cycles regardless of how much Good or Evil happens down the road. Both Good and Evil are not about cycles and the status quo.

Ultimately, if you want to create a conflict within Good, I'd suggest a conflict between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good in a world where Good lacks the capacity to finally eliminate Evil in an end-game like you describe. Basically, explore what happens when people equate order or liberty with Good and how either (or both) can conflict with protecting the innocent. That would let you avoid the whole problem of which side to support being based on a guess about who is right or wrong about what happens when the world ends.

You should probably also see the 1991 movie "The Rapture".

[EDIT: Spelling]

 

[John Morrow]

But others say other things. The fiends I kill say that the end of the world was coming and it would be magnificent, because All Good Would Die, and it would usher in a world of Eternal Torment. The formians claim that it will create a world of Ultimate Order. The Slaad claim it would create a world of Chaos Supreme. The Rilmani say it would be a Perfect Balance.

Good would have to be certain enough that it's correct before it would be willing to gamble the lives of innocents. Basically, I don't thing Good Outsiders would kill the innocent on a spin of the roulette wheel, nor would Lawful Outsiders. Chaotic and Evil outsiders might and probably would, though.

But I don't want the world to end. There are too many questions. It's not time yet. We don't know for sure. I want the puppies to live, but can I trust a Deva more than I can trust a Devil who says the exact same thing?

That's a Neutral argument. Why can you trust the Deva? Because, as per the RAW, the Deva should be concerned with protecting the innocent and repsecting sentient life. Unless that Deva is certain that killing some innocents will produce a net gain in Goodness, I don't see why the Deva would do it. In fact, it sounds very much like you are creating a straw man version of Good so that you can knock it over, allowing your setting to be morally relative. There isn't anything wrong with that if that's what you want to explore but I don't think it's what is intended by the RAW.

All I know for sure is that it's existence is causing suffering to the world as it is right now. But the world as it is right now can be a pretty brutal place...maybe it deserves to suffer. Maybe the suffering will make it better, or maybe it will only make the evil parts of it suffer. Am I an evil person for slaying this good creature, for saving the world, for not believing in the words of angels, because I am affraid that they might be wrong?

That's a Neutral argument. D&D has 9 alignments, not 4. And I think that most cases where it breaks down are when people try to treat it as a 4 alignment system rather than a 9 alignment system.

[EDIT: Spelling]

 

[John Morrow]

Never, ever trust an idealogue. They'll tell you anything, anything to get you to bat for their team. For all you know, the Deva knows exactly what will happen to you.

...and that's a Chaotic argument.

Maybe your entire identity will be subsumed into the Deva's god, and thereby be annihilated. The Deva thinks this is the ultimate good because it is required to and it never disobeys its master.

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

The Deva you describe would not be Good according to the RAW. It would not be protecting innocetn live, not respect life, and not have any concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

Just because something's from the upper planes doesn't mean it thinks you know what's in your own best interests. And the things that it thinks are just super are probably fairly mind-bending if what you want out of life is a long lifespan and few metaphysical anamolies.

...and that's an atheistic or agnostic argument. Whether the Outer Plane creatures do or don't know what's best will depend on the setting's cosmology.

Of course, if the Deva doesn't actually know what is going to happen, and only thinks it does, you're up the same creek. In the opinion of Joe Commoner, the Deva can go and get stuffed just like the forces of Evil, Law and Chaos. Hell, we've got crops to get planted. We don't need any of this "end of the world" garbage.

If the Deva doesn't know what will happen, it's also difficult to defend the Deva's actions as Good. But remember that Joe Commoner is Neutral. He would say that.

Myself, I'm with the dragons and fey. If they like universal [order/chaos/good/evil] they should stay on the freakin' outer planes where it's already made manifest. Let us manage our own business here in the material plane in all its messy complexity, because we like complexity and having things like choices and decisions instead of it being "all good, all the time."

...and that's a True Neutral argument or possibly Chaotic Neutral argument. Why wouldn't you want to be "all good, all the time"? What value do you get out of having cruelty, hatred, and murder in your world? Why would you want to preserve such things if you could get rid of them?

And if they can't figure out what the end of the world is going to look like, then they'd better come back with some better proof than "I say it'll be great," if they want any support from the denizens of the material plane. Sure, we might be convinced that a celestial victory would be super, but only if they can give us a "triple your universe back" guarantee that their version is the one that'll stick. I don't think anyone's going to be very happy if the place gets overrun with slaads. Certainly not anyone who's working out of the SRD.

I don't think that anyone who doesn't have a Chaotic alignment would play dice with the Universe like that without a very good reason.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

The Deva has an active interest in ripping apart the Material plane. She acts certain in the knowledge that once the material plane is ripped apart at the seams, it will be an eternally good place, filled with only lightness and joy. This world is flawed -- it has evil, it has corruption. To destroy it would bring in a world of goodness and light, without the evil that taints it now...

So to allow the Deva to live will allow the Deva to advance the cause of destroying the material plane...it wants to.

My question would definately be how did this creature of innate goodness seek to usher about the end of the world as a good act. I mean, did it seek to destroy evil piece by piece until all that remained was goodness, or did it seek to simply wipe the slate clean.

By ripping apart the Material Plane, it eradicates the neutral ground on which Evil can exist. By making it all Good, it allows Good as the only possibility -- there can be no more evil.

Now that I have that out of my system, did you do anything effective? I mean, did destroying this innately good creature bring about the good that you wanted, did it save the world? Or was the worlds end coming thousands of years from now, and the deva was just doing its part. Or even better, was what the deva was doing actually bringing about the end of the world, or would the end happen anyway, and the deva was making sure that it ended with good as the victor.

Even the graybeards don't know the answers to much of this...but they say that if extraplanar creatures keep coming through, the mateiral plane may cease to be as early as the coming of Spring. It's on its last legs. By stopping the creatures not of this world, it will keep the world together for that much longer, allow those who defend this world to repair it, maybe find a way to forbid entrance of the outside. Every day, every week is a small victory or a small defeat for the material plane. It has endured so many small defeats that, quite literally, you could wake up tomorrow and it could be gone. No one who's not from the outside knows what would replace it -- they just know it wouldn't be the world as we know it. All those on the outside say that the end would benefit their side. A lot of the sages think the world will splinter and fracture, be devided up by the outsiders, and be subsumed by those planes. The outsiders here want to make sure their homes get as much territory as possible. Of course, they stress that this is only an educated guess -- it's just as likely that it will all be damned, or all be saved...

Unless you had some reason to suspect that a creature like that would make a mistake and actually do something Evil, then yes. Was it Evil? That depends on the motivations. It may only be Neutral if it were done out of self interest rather than cruelty or malice.

But either way, it destroys my Good alignment? I can't be a paladin and defend my homeland? I can't be a good cleric and want to save my world?

Is the leadership of the Grand Church Good? Do they continue to have the capacity to cast spells through Good divine power? Do the deities of the setting want to bring about the collapse? Do your Good deities make mistakes? What's the motivation for the Fey and Dragons for stopping them?

This is part of what I want to find out! The deities definately want the collapse to happen (for the same reason the other outsiders do), and they're as capable of making mistakes as the other outsiders are. The motives of the Fey and Dragons is partially because they are tied to the material plane, and will be destroyed along with it. They also don't know the situation any better than the humans do, and aren't about to trust the words of any one outsider over another, since they're all saying the same thing, and regardless of what happens the dragons and fey won't be able to help recover from the situation if it turns out that, say, the fiends were right and the celestials were wrong and everyone is damned (or vice-versa for the evil dragons and fey).

That's a Neutral argument. Why can you trust the Deva? Because, as per the RAW, the Deva should be concerned with protecting the innocent and repsecting sentient life. Unless that Deva is certain that killing some innocents will produce a net gain in Goodness, I don't see why the Deva would do it. In fact, it sounds very much like you are creating a straw man version of Good so that you can knock it over, allowing your setting to be morally relative. There isn't anything wrong with that if that's what you want to explore but I don't think it's what is intended by the RAW.

The Deva is certain....and the fiends are just as certain....and the good gods are as certain...and the evil gods are as certain....they each think the other side is wrong, they all say the same things. The problem is that what they say is kind of mutually exclusive. This results in the vague morality. It's not that there ISN'T a real Good it's that the only people who are sure of this are saying things which cannot possibly be altogether true, even though to all appearances and magic, they all speak the truth.

That's a Neutral argument. D&D has 9 alignments, not 4. And I think that most cases where it breaks down are when people try to treat it as a 4 alignment system rather than a 9 alignment system.

So, in the world that I have set up, you cannot be a Paladin, or a life-channeling cleric, and want to protect your home? You cannot be Good and want to defend the world? You have to want to destroy everything to be able to tap the power of Good?

I'm not trying to break the alignment system, I'm trying to think through the outcomes of the world I've created.

 

[Nifft]

Is your [Good] acting good?

Is ripping appart the universe really in my best interest?
Either I'm insufficiently enlightened, or your [Good] is insufficiently good.
(And trying to rip appart insufficiently enlightened people is not [Good].)

-- N

 

[I'm A Banana]

Is ripping appart the universe really in my best interest?
Either I'm insufficiently enlightened, or your [Good] is insufficiently good.
(And trying to rip appart insufficiently enlightened people is not [Good].)

As far as that Deva is concerned (for instance), ripping apart the universe is the only way to achieve a true universal good. When the universe is torn apart, the only things left will be the Good Ones. Evil will be destroyed. What this means kind of depends on who's talking -- if evil will just simply cease to be in people's minds (meaning that the necromancer will wake up at the end of the world and be genuinely Good) or whether the people who are evil will be destroyed (the necromancer will just cease to exist). In the minds of the good outsiders, the specifics aren't that important, because the end will be justice and light for all...

...which sounds good, until you notice that the Yugoloths are saying the exact same thing. And both are 100% sure about what this outcome will be. You, a mere mortal, are not. All you have to go on are conflicting truths.

We can assume, for simplicty's sake, that paladins and clerics gain their powers more from strength of internal faith and the way they live life, rather than directly from these outside powers.

Can you want to save the world and be a paladin at the same time?

 

[Nifft]

As far as that Deva is concerned (for instance), ripping apart the universe is the only way to achieve a true universal good.

Either "universal" does not include me, or it's not "true" universal good.

In the minds of the good outsiders, the specifics aren't that important, because the end will be justice and light for all...

"End justifies the means"... I've heard that before, but not from a Deva. They don't sound very [Good] to me.

Can you want to save the world and be a paladin at the same time?

I'm not seeing any conflict. Smite the fiends, even the shiny ones with feathers!

-- N

 

[I'm A Banana]

Either "universal" does not include me, or it's not "true" universal good.

(devil's advocate mode) The Deva would say that if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, so to speak. To exclude evil and those who sympathize and want to defend evil is the best good there can be....

 

[Nifft]

(devil's advocate mode) The Deva would say that if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, so to speak. To exclude evil and those who sympathize and want to defend evil is the best good there can be....

Anyone who thinks innocent bystanders are "part of the problem" is insufficiently [Good].

Accomodating the wants & needs of others is the hallmark of [Good]. Killing those who get in the way of your grand designs is something else...

-- N