Limits of morality in the game?

[mmadsen]

Paladins are often the source of alignment-based debates because not everyone agrees on what the archetype itself should be like.

I think there's a rift between people who see lawful good as what I jokingly call Superman morality -- not the Nietzschean sense, but in the comicbook sense of never having to make any tradeoffs -- versus those who see it in more grounded sense of having to make tough decisions to yield the best outcome.

Superman has the luxury of saving Lois and stopping the criminals, all while hurting no bystanders. The rest of us have to make some tough choices, often under uncertainty.

 

[moritheil]

I think there's a rift between people who see lawful good as what I jokingly call Superman morality -- not the Nietzschean sense, but in the comicbook sense of never having to make any tradeoffs -- versus those who see it in more grounded sense of having to make tough decisions to yield the best outcome.

Superman has the luxury of saving Lois and stopping the criminals, all while hurting no bystanders. The rest of us have to make some tough choices, often under uncertainty.

I'll agree with that. Moreover, I don't really quite get why everyone equates "good" with "soft." Sure, in the real world, the dominant religions happen to have significant aspects of mercy to them. But that's really not the case in many DnD settings. There's no reason why an LG patron of paladins has to be particularly merciful towards evil - and his code would reflect that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let's broaden the question then: Is it good to kill young creatures that will grow up to kill good people?

No.

Is it good to kill young creatures that will very likely kill good people?

No.

Is it good to kill young creatures that will fairly likely kill good people?

No.

OTOH, sometimes it is very, very necessary, and the forces of Good take up that burden because it must be done. The important question, IMHO, is are these actions evil? IMHO, the answer to the first question is No...if you can know that answer, and the other two enter a more grey area.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'll agree with that. Moreover, I don't really quite get why everyone equates "good" with "soft." Sure, in the real world, the dominant religions happen to have significant aspects of mercy to them. But that's really not the case in many DnD settings. There's no reason why an LG patron of paladins has to be particularly merciful towards evil - and his code would reflect that.

I agree with that!

EDIT: In fact, I believe it is entirely reasonable that, if the Paladin's god tells him (via his religious doctrine) that slaying goblinoid babies is the way to go because they will cause harm to good beings if left alone, this is not an evil act. Maybe misguided, but not evil.

 

[mmadsen]

No.

So you're arguing that it is not good to kill something that will kill good people?

 

[Raven Crowking]

So you're arguing that it is not good to kill something that will kill good people?

Correct. Killing is an evil act, in general, and at best a neutral act. Sometimes killing is necessary to prevent a greater evil, but that doesn't make it good.

 

[mmadsen]

Correct. Killing is an evil act, in general, and at best a neutral act. Sometimes killing is necessary to prevent a greater evil, but that doesn't make it good.

I think we're playing a semantic game then. A rabid dog is about to maul a bunch of school kids. Is killing that mad dog good or not good? I say it is good.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think we're playing a semantic game then. A rabid dog is about to maul a bunch of school kids. Is killing that mad dog good or not good? I say it is good.

I think the problem is that there's actually more than one thing going on here.

"Killing rabid dog" is neutral. It isn't evil, but if there was a way to save the dog, that would be good. A good character regrets the need for killing.

"saving bunch of school kids" is good.

Even though the character does something he regrets, he does it for a greater good, and thus can feel pretty darn spiffy about himself. His overall action is good, even if not all of the components of that action are good.

RC

 

[mmadsen]

His overall action is good, even if not all of the components of that action are good.

If killing a rabid dog is good -- and you agree that it is, overall, good -- then killing a baby demon is equally good. ("Baby demon" could refer to any number of things that are not particularly dangerous now but will cause great harm in the future if unchecked.)

Mercy makes more sense if (a) we value the life of our target, and (b) our target might not cause great harm in the future. In the case of a demon, we don't value its life, and we know it's up to know good; it's inherently evil. Mercy makes little sense.

In the case of a goblin, I'm not sure where we stand; I assume it varies significantly from world to world. Of course, that leaves us with a different question: Is it merciful to leave a goblin whelp to starve in a cave? Is it good to call off a righteous assault on a truly evil enemy in order to protect the young who have little chance of growing into peaceful members of our society?

 

[edgewaters]

Mercy makes more sense if (a) we value the life of our target, and (b) our target might not cause great harm in the future.

No. Mercy - in the classical sense rather than the crude or vernacular sense - is based on the idea of the sanctity of life itself, irrespective of who holds it. In this sense, it is right, but very regrettable and to be avoided if at all possible, to take the life of one to preserve two.