D&D 5E The alignments defined

[Flamestrike]

What fantasy inspiration are you drawing from here? LotR?

The only Lord to order genocide was Denethir and he was batshit crazy, and his orders were clearly depicted as evil. Gandalf wasnt down with 'murder the evildoers'; he expressly advised Frodo against it (with Gollum) which is what led to Good winning over Evil.

If Frodo had have murdered Gollum 'because he's evil', Sauron would have won.

Who else do we see order genocide? Sauroman? The Orcs? Sauron? The evil guys. Not the good guys.

 

[Flamestrike]

What other fantasy genre is 'murder, genocide, slavery' etc depicted as good?

Historical or otherwise?

I mean, there may be a lot if it around, but that doesn't make it good. It just means there is more of it.

 

[dave2008]

My view is genocide, rape, murder, slavery and torture are evil. They were just as evil 1000 years ago, as they will be in another 1000 years from now, and they are just as evil when I see or read about them in fiction, or see a depiction of a protagonist doing them. That protagonist (in my eyes) is now, evil.

I generally agree, except I don't think committing an evil act makes one evil. How one responds to committing an evil act, and if they understand it is evil, is an important and part of the equation.

 

[Helldritch]

I generally agree, except I don't think committing an evil act makes one evil. How one responds to committing an evil act, and if they understand it is evil, is important and part of the equation.

Exactly where I am getting at. We know. They did not always knew.

 

[Flamestrike]

I generally agree, except I don't think committing an evil act makes one evil. How one responds to committing an evil act, and if they understand it is evil, is an important and part of the equation.

I think they're both important, as is the degree of the evil and the context behind it.

I could see a rare few Good person forced into the ridiculous 'kill a baby to save the world' scenario actually killing the baby (for example). That's clearly an evil act (but not one that makes the Good person, no longer good), if their actions before and after were consistently good, they agonized over the act, and it haunted them forever.

Even then I doubt a truly Good person could do it.

I could also see an otherwise Good person, doing a henious act out of rage, or hatred in the heat of the moment (and totally out of character) that might not make them an (overall) Evil person, particularly if they showed insight into their behaviour, repentance, and a commitment to change and be good.

It was jarring when Luke Skywalker pulled out his lightsaber to murder young Ben Solo in his sleep, even though he didnt go through with it. If he had have actually been shown as doing it? I would have left the cinema over a betrayal of his character and his established morality in the three movies to date (he's basically NG).

 

[dave2008]

Exactly where I am getting at. We know. They did not always knew.

However, we seem to disagree in that I think that act is still evil, If a person continues to commit such acts, even if they don't understand they are evil, that person will likely be evil. Not knowing your evil, doesn't make you good.

To be clear I think a person can commit good and evil acts, it is the balance of them that determines whether or not the person is evil, good, or something in between.

 

[Flamestrike]

Exactly where I am getting at. We know. They did not always knew.

Doesnt make it less evil.

And who says they didnt know that murder, rape, slavery and so forth was evil?

You cant possibly know that.

 

[Flamestrike]

To be clear I think a person can commit good and evil acts, it is the balance of them that determines whether or not the person is evil, good, or something in between.

I disagree. A serial killer, perpetrator of genocide, slave trader or mass rapist is evil, no matter how many good deeds or good traits they otherwise display.

 

[Helldritch]

Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm talking about genocide.
The eradication of villages and people in them was not seen as evil but as necessary. Richard Lionheart did it in the crusade. He ordered the eradication of half a town and said that if only one crusader died again in that town, then the rest of the population would be killed. The muslim did the same during their conquest of india. China during the war of the 13 kingdoms saw the same things and there are probably more examples of these atrocities done in the name of good than I can find and mention here.

The eradication of heaten was seen as a good thing because it eliminated potential threats. It was saving lives. In their POV they were doing the right thing.

I will say again that I do not advocate such heinous acts.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I am sure that your character will fall into one of these almost perfectly.

No. Barely any character I've ever seen would fit these.

The obsessive use of "always" and "never" means these are "personality disorder"-type alignments, that are more harmful than helpful.