YAAT Good is just passe?

[hong]

First off... YAAT?

Yet Another Alignment Thread.

Second, I have to say that these types of threads are perhaps my favourite to read and post to...

This is because you haven't seen enough alignment threads.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=alignment&meta=group=rec.games.frp.dnd

 

[JLXC]

//First off... YAAT? //

Yet Another Alignment Thread, coined some time back heh.

//If a character, let's call him Garacaius, acts in such a way which saves a Duke unknown to him from the blades of bandits he's already witnessed murder an entire troupe of entertainers. Is this good? His intentions are to save a stranger (an innocent?) from a party he knows to be quite murderous (and evil).//

Yep Good.

//Now, he saves the Duke, and kills several of the bandits before they escape. He killed these bandits, these murderers, in defense of this man. Is this good?//

Since they were trying to kill him, and they are apparently not screaming "You are helping an Evil Mudering Scum, stand aside we don't wish to hurt you!" or anything. Ummm.. Self Defense. Good.

//Afterwards, he learns that the Duke, after ascending to the Throne, embarked upon a campaign of "ethnic cleansing" against the elven population of the land. Therefore, saving the Duke led to the death and destruction of most of the elven population in the Kingdom of Eos (or wherever).

If Garacaius then laments the deaths of these people, but does not regret saving the Duke, does that make him "less Good?" If he regrets saving the Duke, does that change anything? Obviously, if he doesn't care either way, he's either on the distasteful side of neutral, or even evil...//

Hmm... saving someone who later does Evil. It was Good for him to save the Duke. To remain GOOD the character should go have words with the Duke, or help the elves, or something. It depends on the players background and outlook though.

Regret is DEFINATELY a sign of possible goodness. Action is better. The character should want to DO something if he is really Good.

//Personally, I believe that our friend Garacaius is still Good if he laments the death of the elves, but does not regret saving the Duke at that time. The same rings true with the second, where he regrets saving the Duke in hindsight.//

I agree totally.

//The fact remains that at the time, Garacaius believed that what he was doing was virtuous, and therefore, there should be no transgressions on record.//

I agree, however in good concience he might be driven to go to the Duke if possible, or maybe help the elves, or maybe do SOMETHING. Good is about actions.

If you save a child who grows up to destroy to world are you Evil? NO WAY. Only the Gods with foresight could know such things, and why the hell don't they help out then?

Epic Quests to change past mistakes are possible...

"I WISH I did not save Duke Jerkoff" or
"I WISH the elves of such and such had been warned one month before Duke Jerkoff started attacking them, and believed the warning"

This is D&D, anything is possible!

 

[Reprisal]

Action is better. The character should want to DO something if he is really Good.

This is definately something to keep in mind, thanks man.

This is because you haven't seen enough alignment threads.

, I guess that's true. Perhaps in a few hundred more posts, I'll get nice and jaded, .

So perhaps mixing both intentions, motivations, and actions and reactions into the subjective "formula" would do me a bit better?

Hehe, that doesn't seem to make it any easier, but thanks anyways.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Sacrifice and risk

He's making a down payment with his own life that his god will greatly reward him in the afterlife.

I disagree that sacrifice can only be used to further good ends. A simple example in DnD would be a cleric of a god of disease who infects himself with an extremely virulent plague, and then goes into a city to spread it to others. Obviously, he is evil, yet has sacrificed himself.

I completely second your second argument. I care about my own life way more than any PC's life, and am much more loathe to risk it.

 

[Reprisal]

Dinkeldog quoted Zerovoid saying "I completely second your second argument. I care about my own life way more than any PC's life, and am much more loathe to risk it."

I think there's some real wisdom in this sentence... You see, in D&D, we have the privilege of knowing that there is an afterlife where our characters could exist eternally in bliss or agony depending upon our actions. I do not believe that many of us know that the same can be said with the objectivity the game affords.

Just more to think about, hehe.

(Hooray! Just passed the 100 post mark! May there be 1,000 more!)

 

[Bonedagger]

The definition on good and evil in D&D is pretty well described in the PHB p. 88 so I don't see any reason to rewrite that here but...

Just a little rant...

What if you think of good as another potential type of calculated egoism. You never really know the true motives of the benefactor. I think that this is what often haunt DM's who strive for goodness as a driving factor in their game since players tend to treat good acts like a karma that can be collected for later use.
And when player at the same time are thought that true heroic acts are rewarded above the normal they tend to become Lawful Stupid. (Stupid because they act out from a greater good when they get in doubt. Intensions comes first). The players can end up feeling it is a one-solution game and that they are more or less just actors. My experience is that this quickly becomes boring.

The alignments have benefits in them self. As a DM you shouldn't need to favor any of them.

Added: I'm not saying that I'm against DM's who forbid certain alignments.

 

[Doc_Subtlety]

Snoweel:

Sacrifice means to give something up. Your character gave nothing up, in the end, and if he had have, it was essentailly for his own benefit.

Before that campaign was over, radiation poisoning was involved, among other unpleasantness. The thing about taking risks: doesn't matter how good you are, nobody keeps a winning streak up forever.

Anyways, the point is:
You shouldn't confuse sacrifice, or a willingness to take a risk, for heroism. (A good real world example would be the suicide bombers of 9/11. They certainly gave something up, but I wouldn't say their motives were heroic and Good.)

 

[Bonedagger]

Snoweel:

Before that campaign was over, radiation poisoning was involved, among other unpleasantness. The thing about taking risks: doesn't matter how good you are, nobody keeps a winning streak up forever.

Anyways, the point is:
You shouldn't confuse sacrifice, or a willingness to take a risk, for heroism. (A good real world example would be the suicide bombers of 9/11. They certainly gave something up, but I wouldn't say their motives were heroic and Good.)

I would just call them misguided (And religious fanatics).

For me:

Good sacrifies = Personal power sacrifice to help others.

Evil sacrifice = Sacrifice of your own humanity to gain power.

 

[Reprisal]

"Hero"

I was always of the mind that the term "Hero" doesn't necessarily refer to one's virtue, or moral worth... Checking the entry for "hero" and "heroism" on dictionary.com, it appears that my suspicions were (at least partially) correct.

An act of heroism is the display of great courage, fortitude or strength. (More or less, I gather...)

I think the term "Hero," when referred with D&D in mind, is very much a loaded statement. There are things that are assumed when one discusses it... An alignment of "Good" being one of the chief components... Therefore, can you have a neutral Hero? Probably. A good Hero? Most definately. An evil? Maybe it's not as cut-and-dry as I had previously thought...

Are Fanatical Clerics of the Opposing Church attacking the Paragon Kingdom heroes? Well, perhaps to those espousing the Opposing Church... At first glance, I would be inclined to say yes, if we're talking from a "point of view" angle.

(Uh.. Why do I suddenly feel like Bill Maher? )

 

[Storminator]

Snoweel:

Before that campaign was over, radiation poisoning was involved, among other unpleasantness. The thing about taking risks: doesn't matter how good you are, nobody keeps a winning streak up forever.

Anyways, the point is:
You shouldn't confuse sacrifice, or a willingness to take a risk, for heroism. (A good real world example would be the suicide bombers of 9/11. They certainly gave something up, but I wouldn't say their motives were heroic and Good.)

The suicide bombers of 9/11 are indeed considered heroes all over the muslim world. They have a very different view of the context of events that led to that day. In they're minds, they are the good guys, America is the evil empire, and their scrappy little heroes have slain dragons at great personal sacrifice.

PS