Limits of morality in the game?

[mmadsen]

Methinks one is going a bit too far with examples here...

That is on purpose, to clarify exactly what matters and what doesn't.

(And Hellboy is specifically not a valid example of a "baby demon" as I defined it. He clearly has free will and has chosen not to be evil. The whole point of the "baby demon" notion was that it was not yet dangerous but destined to be evil.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, but you can kill a spider before it bites you. And you can kill a fox or a weasel before it successfully kills your hens and starves your family.

True. But, if you're dancing in glee because killing it was a "good" thing, the odds are that you are not "good" yourself. Most "good" creatures would recognize that the spider, fox, or weasel were also living creatures, trying to survive.


RC

 

[mmadsen]

But, if you're dancing in glee because killing it was a "good" thing, the odds are that you are not "good" yourself.

There's a clear difference between sadistic glee in killing for killing's sake and recognition that you've done a good deed in killing something that might kill your kith and kin. The notion that killing is generally wrong does not mean that when it is right it's less right.

 

[Wolfwood2]

(And Hellboy is specifically not a valid example of a "baby demon" as I defined it. He clearly has free will and has chosen not to be evil. The whole point of the "baby demon" notion was that it was not yet dangerous but destined to be evil.)

Ah, but that brings in the difficulties of imperfect knowledge.

By everything the BPRD knew, there was an excellent chance that Hellboy was a monster who would grow up to be evil and destructive as part of his nature. Broom was taking an awful chance in assuming that nurture could overcome nature. How were they to know that pancakes could flip Hellboy's switch from Evil to Free Will?

At least I think so, I'm not a Hellboy guru.

 

[mmadsen]

Ah, but that brings in the difficulties of imperfect knowledge.

Absolutely.

By everything the BPRD knew, there was an excellent chance that Hellboy was a monster who would grow up to be evil and destructive as part of his nature. Broom was taking an awful chance in assuming that nurture could overcome nature. How were they to know that pancakes could flip Hellboy's switch from Evil to Free Will?

And I wouldn't hold it against someone if they sincerely believed a demon had no choice but to be evil and they killed it.

Of course, if you've got the resources, these "baby demon" scenarios bring up another option: wait and gain more knowledge. In the middle of war for humanity's very existence, a paladin might be giving up too much by harboring goblin babies, but in a time of plenty, letting them live might be feasible.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The notion that killing is generally wrong does not mean that when it is right it's less right.

Assuming, of course, that it ever is "right" as opposed to "necessary", which isn't something that I concede.

The words Gandalf spoke to Frodo (something along the lines of, "Many that live deserve to die. And many that die deserve to live. Can you give life to them? Then don't be so hasty to deal death in judgement.") is, IMHO, a major part of the difference between Good and perhaps Neutral. Good people generally avoid killing unless necessary. Which is why, assuming that players want to be the heroes, the game includes scenarios and creatures that are specifically designed to make killing them necessary.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And I wouldn't hold it against someone if they sincerely believed a demon had no choice but to be evil and they killed it.

So, if sincerely believe that humans have no choice but to be evil, and start a wholesale slaughter, I am "Good"?

 

[mmadsen]

So, if sincerely believe that humans have no choice but to be evil, and start a wholesale slaughter, I am "Good"?

You'd clearly be wrong, and it would be right to stop you, but you'd be well-intentioned within your delusional perception of the world.

Imagine that someone has cast a spell on you such that you see ordinary people as armed and about to kill other innocent bystanders. Are you evil for defending those innocent bystanders? You're clearly wrong, in an objective sense, but you're well-intentioned, and after the curse was removed, I'd have trouble finding fault with your moral compass.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Are you evil for defending those innocent bystanders? You're clearly wrong, in an objective sense, but you're well-intentioned, and after the curse was removed, I'd have trouble finding fault with your moral compass.

Well, honestly, I find that a far more interesting question.

Can a person unintentionally do evil and still be a good person? I would argue that he can, but that his sense of regret, when he discovers his error, is critical. A good person may, in fact, feel that he is not a good person.

Similarly, an evil person may feel that his actions are just and correct, and that he is good.

A neutral person probably feels that he is good.


Also, may I note that, if I went by my definition of "good", I would first attempt to prevent the "armed people" from their actions by non-lethal means and might thus have prevented a much greater evil?

RC

 

[hopeless]

Reg: This

I tend to play good aligned characters and had run about 3 LG characters before starting a cleric of helm who was LN as a change.
After fighting inside a keep being held by an usurper who had been allied to an assassin's guild we confronted the former lieteneut and he begged for mercy from my character.
I in turn responded that had he had done so before forcing us to storm the keep I might have agreed.
The dm promptly ignored what I said and forced me to accept the lieteneuts request even though he was blatantly abusing his position and not for the first time I got no support from the toher players although had they been his brothers or sons it would have been an entirely different matter.
Sorry reading this thread reminded me of that situation.
Back to the thread...