What alignment is Baltar?

[hexgrid]

It's true that he rarely desires to harm for the sake of harming others, but that's a very high standard for evil!

I think that this standard should be used for evil, because evil is the opposite of good, not the absence of it. And to be good, you have to help people for the sole sake of helping them.

 

[delericho]

Heck, of the major characters, I think only Bill Adama, Lee Adama, and President Roslin are Good. The others are a perfectly decent neutral.

Helo is Good - he sacrifices his spot on the transport for Giaus Baltar (and, he thinks, the good of humanity) in the Pilot. Thereafter he doesn't have a lot of opportunity to show Goodness, but I think it's still there.

Tyrol might well be Good, although I'm not certain in his case.

Tom Zarek is interesting. He's clearly not Good, but where does he lie in the Law/Chaos axis? And is he Neutral or Evil? (I would probably say NE, but I'm willing to be swayed on that one.)

 

[delericho]

And to be good, you have to help people for the sole sake of helping them.

Manifestly untrue. There are plenty of firefighters, soldiers, paramedics and others who do huge amounts of good, but whose major motivation for doing so is because it is their job.

Being Good does not require doing Good for the sole sake of doing Good. Indeed, one can do nothing but Good for nothing but selfish reasons (I want to look good for the cameras) and still be Good. Nor does being Good necessarily require sacrifice, although it almost certainly requires the willingness to sacrifice (a firefighter who is lucky enough to survive his career unscathed is no less Good than his colleague who happens to get burned up in the line of duty).

 

[AuraSeer]

Neither action actually hurts someone. Just because you give a sword away does not make you evil.....the act had more lawful vs chaotic morals than good vs evil. He is not resposible for how that sword was used....giving the sword away was an unlawful act...not an evil one.

Nonsense. He knew what Gina was going to do, and gave her the weapon anyway. He shares full responsibility for the consequences.

To continue your sword analogy, let's say you're a town blacksmith. A man walks past your shop on the street, and you recognize him as an old acquaintance who is now a wanted murderer-- the leader of a violent gang. His gang has murdered a number of people in your neighborhood recently. In fact you're pretty sure he personally killed a woman you were acquainted with (but you didn't like her anyway). You rush out of your shop, hand the man a +5 unholy humanbane greatsword as a present, and wish him a good afternoon.

Later, when he has used your sword to slaughter a whole lot more innocent people, you don't get to plead ignorance.

 

[Balgus]

I agree that he is chaotic- his tendencies swing madly from day to day and he is everythign but stable.

I think he is evil- for the simple fact that he is helping the cylons against the human race. In DND- a ranger can only take their own race as favorite enemy if they are evil. He obviously have extensive knowledge and expertise against humans, and to use that knowledge agaisnt his own race- IS EVIL

 

[Wolf72]

my first thought was NE ... but CN is a better fit, I think.

I don't believe he is any sort of lawful or good ... if that narrows it down a bit.

 

[prosfilaes]

I think that this standard should be used for evil, because evil is the opposite of good, not the absence of it. And to be good, you have to help people for the sole sake of helping them.

But you would be hard-pressed to find many people who harm people for the sake of harming them. Vile people who have slaughtered millions have usually done so for the sake of self-power, not sadism, but that doesn't mean they're not evil.

 

[Wolfwood2]

I think that this standard should be used for evil, because evil is the opposite of good, not the absence of it. And to be good, you have to help people for the sole sake of helping them.

Well, how can we have a meaningful discussion if you're redefining the terms to what you think they "should be"?

I'm going by the terms as actually defined in the PHB. You're welcome to say the evil in the PHB is not really evil, the neutral not really neutral, and the good not really good if you like, but at that point the terms are essentially meaningless for discussion purposes.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Manifestly untrue. There are plenty of firefighters, soldiers, paramedics and others who do huge amounts of good, but whose major motivation for doing so is because it is their job.

Is what they're doing "Good" by the D&D definition of the term? Please make your case rather than starting with an unproven assumption.

Being Good does not require doing Good for the sole sake of doing Good. Indeed, one can do nothing but Good for nothing but selfish reasons (I want to look good for the cameras) and still be Good. Nor does being Good necessarily require sacrifice, although it almost certainly requires the willingness to sacrifice (a firefighter who is lucky enough to survive his career unscathed is no less Good than his colleague who happens to get burned up in the line of duty).

Being good requires a willingness to unselfishly sacrifice for others. Sometimes people risk the sacrifice and don't actually get hurt, but it's their willingness to do so in the first place that makes them good.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Is what they're doing "Good" by the D&D definition of the term? Please make your case rather than starting with an unproven assumption.

Being good requires a willingness to unselfishly sacrifice for others. Sometimes people risk the sacrifice and don't actually get hurt, but it's their willingness to do so in the first place that makes them good.

Every firefighter and police officer can get another job. That they do a job which, by definition, puts them in harm's way on behalf of others makes them good, yes.