>Killing innocents for the greater good
What alignment?
Chaotic Shitposter.
>>47955949
some good + some evil = neutral
in general, if there is a lot of debate about whether someone is good or evil they are probably neutral.
>>47955949
>jew-snek fuckery
>innocent
>>47955949
All of them.
For example, it is an inherently Lawful Good act for a Lawful Good Cleric/Paladin/Outsider to viciously genocide Chaotic Evil goblin women and children.
>>47955949
Lawful Neutral Vengeance Dredd Paladins
>>47955949
Evil. The ends do not justify the means.
>>47955949
Lawful evil or lawful neutred.
>alignment
>>47955965
I snickered.
The Abyss Walkers just fight eachother since they believed in a twisted belief of an original idea.
Sounds like I place I know
Depends on whether or not they get a boner from it.
>>47956039
Nonsense, Goblins are humanoid vermin so alignment does not apply to them. Its like exterminating a nest of aggressive feral dogs or burning a barn full of murder wasps.
>>47955949
Depends on the situation.
DOTS if you will.
>Pic related
I'd say he's still some flavor of good. Better to burn too many than too little in this situation.
>>47956385
He really did nothing wrong there.
>>47955949
Alignment is just a guideline. It's not going to fit into every situation.
>>47955949
Chaotic Anime
>>47955949
Any non-Good.
>>47955949
Depends on the context, though this seems a classic case of neutral. While it also depends on the mind-set of the character, this seems almost text-book neutral. Good would pursue another way, and failing that, do minimal to kill innocents. Likewise, evil would have no qualms with it, though wouldn't be doing it for the "Greater Good".
As for the way they follow the law? Definitely chaotic. This is classic vigilante tier, although innocents is a bit further away from that.
Chaotic Neutral is my final verdict.
>>47955949
Evil. Seriously you faggots dont fucking understand this shit because you're trying to mix different systems of ethics together and ignoring what the Alignment system says.
>Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
>Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
>Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
>People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
There is no such thing as the Greater Good. And if there was, committing evil acts wouldnt further it.
Depends on how many innocents and how great the good.
If sufficiently great good, then it's any good alignment, leaning towards chaotic.
If insufficiently great good, and far too many innocents, it's any of the neutral alignments.
If the greater good is just a convenient excuse, it's chaotic evil masquerading as chaotic neutral.
>>47956778
Good and Evil are measurable quantities in D&D.
The "greater" Good is quite literally whatever result has more Good in it than Evil.
>>47955949
How about you go back to your containment board?
>>>/v/
>>47956350
Goblins aside, I'd argue that killing dangerous animals to protect people is a good action. So your example of ferald dogs and murder wasps might not be so great.
Anything not Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil.
> I won' kill a single Innocent even if that means Killing us all.
>I guess I can restrain myself and not kill Innocents if that means everyone is getting fucked.
>>47956891
This
>>47955949
Evil. There is a lot of situations where the alignment system fails, but this isn't one of them.
Also >>47955965
>>47956039
Nonsense. "vicious" extermination prevents Good since he does that for sadistic pleasure instead of goodness, and anyways an Evil creature isn't innocent by definition.
>>47956817
And any amount of evil utterly taints that good rendering it null. They are opposed elements.
And there isn't a greater good, there is only Good. Evil actions, such as killing innocents, prevents that action from being good. It does not further any form of elemental good as it is tainted by elemental evil.
The Greater Good is a rationalization for evil actions used by people who want to think of themselves as good but not face the hard choices of actually good actions.
>>47957056
>Kantian morality
>Absolute shit tier
>>47955949
Lawful Neutral
>>47955949
Abyss Watchers are LN.
Aldrich is CE.
Princes are NE.
And Yhorm is CG.
That said sin should have been in. Dark Wraiths should have been invader covenant and AW covenat should have replaced blues/darkmoons and auto-invade sinners and auto-help way of blue.
>>47955949
Any Evil.
Slaughtering innocents for the greater good is evil.
>>47957161
"To save a family, abandon a man; to save the village, abandon a family; to save the country, abandon a village"
>>47957056
>And any amount of evil utterly taints that good rendering it null
That way there is absolutely, fundamentally no such thing as goodness anywhere beyond human imagination.
>But I caught and jailed some brutal criminals
Said criminals were robbing innocents to feed their families and loved ones, who are now doomed to starve and suffer because of your actions. Goodness is tainted and rendered null.
>b-but I just healed a poor fellow
He proceeds to kill someone. That's at least partially your responsibility, so the goodness is tainted and rendered null.
>I just gave some coins to a beggar!
He was later robbed and murdered for them. Tainted and rendered null.
>I just fed some bunnies
They proceeded to breed uncontrollably and caused a famine. Null.
>>47956817
>measure
No, they are tangible forces that are in no way measurable.
>greater good = more good than evil
No, doing a mix of good and evil things is neutral. Doing evil in the name of a greater cause is evil.
Good in D&D universes is refusing to do evil to further a greater good and instead seeking a different way because you cannot fathom doing evil in the name of good.
>>47956788
Yes, but the greater good isn't directly related to alignment. Good and Evil are measured by acts, not goals or intents
Example time (from Fiendish Codex 2):
Beating up the weakest boy in the army barracks may serve the greater good (imrpoves cohesion, limit aggressiveness to certain conditions, and incentive to work out for the punching bag. Funnily it may even be considered a Lawful Good act according to 5E, because 5E has many failings like that). However, it's still a purely Evil act according to cosmic balance.
>>47957158
Can you explain your reasoning behind Yhorm and the princes
>>47957222
>No, doing a mix of good and evil things is neutral. Doing evil in the name of a greater cause is evil.
Even if said cause is good?
>Good in D&D universes is refusing to do evil to further a greater good
Paladins are guys with SWORDS AND HAMMERS AND AXES. And they are not for grooming.
>>47955949
Utilitarian absolutism.
>parking in a handicapped spot when you have handicapped plates, but you yourself are not handicapped. They're for a relative. The relative isn't with you.
What alignment?
>>47957279
Lawful Neutral
>>47957191
>"To save a family, abandon a man; to save the village, abandon a family; to save the country, abandon a village"
That's not OP's question.
OP said is killing innocents in the name of a greater good good or evil - and that in any sort of D&D alignment terms is evil. LE frequently commits evil to further society, order, and culture; because that is part of those principles.
You could try to argue some sort of neutral, but the concept of a greater good worth killing for is an evil concept used to justify evil behavior.
The larger issue is not allowing evil Paladins. Having an order devoted to killing for a greater cause is a terrific villainous trope, and it's something where strong conviction can break moral absolutes.
>>47957279
Depends on if they do a fake limp when they get out of the car.
>>47957309
>You could try to argue some sort of neutral, but the concept of a greater good worth killing for is an evil concept used to justify evil behavior.
Pffffrt. By that logic Lawful Neutral plainly does not exist.
>>47957191
To save the world, save the cheerleader.
>>47955949
Forkrul Assail
>>47957255
>even if the cause is good?
Duh. That's why there isn't just "evil" and "good"
>but they are armed!
So? Just being armed doesn't mean killing people is OK. Not even /pol/ would claim that.
>>47957279
Unaligned, like 99% of actions.
>>47957243
In lore Yhorm was pretty good guy who was well respected by his people. His Lordship and Profaned Capital story is pretty dramatic. After ressurection he asks Siegward to slay him.
Lorian and Lothric are cowards who hided in their castle behind army of undead because they refused to do their duty. And just want to prolong suffering of the world.
>>47957326
LN would be not sending troops to bumfuck village to keep them in the greater conflict to win a war while bumfuck is left with their own tiny defense. It's what is the best path to take in the conflict. Some edge lord will call this "the greater good", but it's not; the greater good implies there are differing values of good and therefore it's Ok only to focus on the "best" good acts. There is no "greater good" there is good and there is evil.
A tactical decision is not good but it's not evil, trying to stratify good is only done by evil.
>>47957338
>Duh. That's why there isn't just "evil" and "good"
Well you just said that any action involving any amount of evil is automatically evil.
>So? Just being armed doesn't mean killing people is OK
Killing fools for the sake of justice and goodness (in whatever way his deity understands those) is a paladin's job description. And any sort of "but killing Evil is not evil" is nothing but an attempt at "end justifies the means" approach, that you've already claimed to be evil period. And if you live in a world where paladins auto-Fall for killing anyone ever you should go browse said world's /tg/ and leave this thread alone.
>>47955949
Lawful Evil
His or her intentions are in good faith, but ultimately he or she is slaughtering many to do something. We aren't sure what he or she is saving to keep the greater good.
He isn't neutral evil for it isn't a selfish act, nor chaotic evil for it isn't an act for anarchy or self-entitlement. It isn't good for it is harming innocents for some greater good, and it isn't lawful neutral as lawful neutral usually goes through actual thought on how best to conduct greater good rather than radical decisions.
Lawful evil may have tyrannical implications, but it could also be one who believes he or she is doing the right thing even though he or she is clearly not.
>>47957430
>and it isn't lawful neutral as lawful neutral usually goes through actual thought on how best to conduct greater good rather than radical decisions
"Radical" is nothing but your own disruption of said act.
>>47957448
Dang
>disruption
*description
>>47957093
Son, you're in a D&D alignment thread. D&D alignment is an objective element and force within D&D universes. Anytime someone uses it we must consider it from this frame of reference.
>>47957209
>And any amount of evil utterly taints that good rendering it null
>That way there is absolutely, fundamentally no such thing as goodness anywhere beyond human imagination.
Oh boy, I wonder what kind of strawman arguments are going to be presented!
>But I caught and jailed some brutal criminals
>Said criminals were robbing innocents to feed their families and loved ones, who are now doomed to starve and suffer because of your actions. Goodness is tainted and rendered null.
Catching some criminals is an act of law. Stopping what sounds like murderers from killing more innocents is good. Starving is a neutral action as it is not an immediate consequence. The people who would starve will be supported by Good officers, but would be ignored by neutral or evil officers.
>b-but I just healed a poor fellow
>He proceeds to kill someone. That's at least partially your responsibility, so the goodness is tainted and rendered null.
Healing someone is a good act, what the person who got healed does later on doesn't count.
>I just gave some coins to a beggar!
>He was later robbed and murdered for them. Tainted and rendered null.
The murder, an evil event, took place long after the act of good. The good still stands, it was just overshadowed by a greater act of evil later on. If the beggar was a good soul than Good has prospered as they gain another possible angel to fight evil with and the person who gave those coins was gained more elemental good within their soul for doing so, thus the net good was increased.
>I just fed some bunnies
>They proceeded to breed uncontrollably and caused a famine. Null.
Feeding bunnies is a neutral act, thus not subject to this debate, and them breeding uncontrollably is a neutral act as it comes from an animals.
>>47955949
Lawful neutral, generally, but it can fall onto true neutral or chaotic neutral as well.
>>47957428
>Well you just said that any action involving any amount of evil is automatically evil.
I said doing evil acts is an evil act. Committing evil in the name of good is still committing evil.
I also said that a mix of good and evil makes for neutral people, but acting in the interest of good while committing evil acts still makes you an evil person.
There is no "ends justify the means" in alignment, which is part of the major confusion. If you spend your life assassinating people from a list the king gives you to keep the king of a great country in place you are still evil acting for the greater good.
The greater good is a myth.
>all killing people is end justifies the means
Not when there are actual evil people in the world and you are acting in defense. and justice and goodness have nothing to do with killing, a lot of Paladins are put into the position of needing to kill because the worlds D&D campaigns take part in are horrific and just walking between cities results in being randomly attacked by monsters.
I bet your campaigns involve a lot of bandits that fight to the last man.
>>47957448
>>47957490
Well, the situation described by OP is hardly enough data to conclude on.
If we mean "x many people carry a deadly plague that could kill the entire city". Then a Lawful neutral person would quarantine the area and try to figure out what is wrong rather than healing the sick or straight up killing the infected.
A radical decision would be either of those two which is why LG CG LE and CE are extreme alignments. LE would instead kill all those infected to keep the others from infecting the rest while a LG would heal them the best of their ability.
>>47957242
There are no "Lawful Good" acts in 5e. 5e alignment describes general attitude, not acts.
>>47957158
>Abyss Watchers are LN.
Why not LG?
>>47955949
Chaotic flipping.
>>47957412
>yhorm was well respected by his people
Er no. Go read the item descriptions again, they explicitly point out how much they didn't like him.
>>47955949
>killing innocents
Evil
>For the greater good
Lawful
The answer is lawful evil, however, it's important to remember that goodness and evilness are all relative to who's perceiving them and what you use as a barometer.
Killing innocents deliberately for the mission, or as an unavoidable side effect of it? There's a really big difference here that you're missing.
St Augustine's Just War theory accepts civilians are going to die in war and it's one of the era-shaping Western moral approaches to war. If you claim that makes soldiers, priests, philosphers, etc who accept that theory incapable of being LG I can only shake my head.
>>47955949
If you asked them, neutral good. If you asked a victims family member, probably chaotic evil. On the whole, neutral good seriously bordering on true neutral.
Tbh Id only allow the ''good'' if they only resorted to massacring innocents when they had no other alternative.
>>47957574
They did the right thing but with a lot of blood of innocents. And it was their fetish.
>>47957593
>Yhorm is the descendant of an ancient conqueror, but was asked by the very people once subjugated to lead them, serving as both a weighty blade and a stone-hard shield.
His soul`s description.
>>47957504
>disruption of ecosystem balance to the point of causing famine
>neutral
The BBEG's morally sound yet effective new weapon against the kingdom has just been found
>>47957504
>Starving is a neutral action as it is not an immediate consequence
So, I can keep an entire nation fed barely enough to survive and that won't be an Evil action?
>Healing someone is a good act, what the person who got healed does later on doesn't count.
Because yousaidso? Are you arguing that D&D alignment works on Objectivist level of comsmic shortsightedness?
>The good still stands, it was just overshadowed by a greater act of evil later on
So what is "overshadowed" and what is "tainted" in your system?
>Feeding bunnies is a neutral act, thus not subject to this debate, and them breeding uncontrollably is a neutral act as it comes from an animals.
So, leading a stampede of bulls into a crowd of people is also a neutral act, as trampling comes from animals?
>>47957519
>I also said that a mix of good and evil makes for neutral people
Eeeeh:
>"any amount of evil utterly taints that good rendering it null"
>There is no "ends justify the means" in alignment
There is also no absolutely tainting effect of evil, which means that some acts might have both Evil and Good consequences, making them into Neutral of variously edgy forms.
>If you spend your life assassinating people from a list the king gives you to keep the king of a great country in place you are still evil acting for the greater good.
That's a definitive Lawful Neutral assassin.
>Not when there are actual evil people in the world and you are acting in defense
So, ridding the world of Evils is indeed an end that justifies the means of Evil act of murder? And what are the extends of self-defense from the POV of alignment. That one can go hilariously off the charts.
>I bet your campaigns involve a lot of bandits that fight to the last man.
Not really, but there's usually a plenty of dead involved indeed, as in combat advantage and life are often lost simultaneously.
>>47957604
Except that Alignment uses objective measures of these things. There isn't anything relative about this. Don't want objective Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, stop using D&D alignment.
>>47957680
Good luck with those Druids coming after you.
>>47957688
>D&D alignment works on Objectivist level
Yes.
>>47957703
No. Get out.
>>47957697
>Except that Alignment uses objective measures of these things. There isn't anything relative about this. Don't want objective Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, stop using D&D alignment.
From OP's scenario there wasn't enough information to make an objective intonation, quit being silly. You know as well as I do that alignment can be lawyered into whatever you want. Just look at most lawful good characters, give them a slightly complex problem and you'll see so much spaghetti.
>>47957661
Fail.
>Lonely Yhorm became a Lord of Cinder to put the Profaned Flame to rest, knowing full well that those who spoke of him as lord were quite insincere
His cinders.
>Yhorm the Giant once held two of these, but gave one to the humans that doubted him, and left the other to a dear friend before facing his fate as a Lord of Cinder.
Storm Ruler.
They doubted him even as he went to roast himself in their name.
>>47957697
> There isn't anything relative about this
There is. At the very least the very existence of 5 Neutral alignments out of 9. That's before we touch the issue of absolute most of actions being unaligned, or the fundamentally inevitable GM lawyering, or the fact that conflicts over alignment understanding interpretation canonically exist IN UNIVERSE.
>>47956108
Kill 1 person to save the entire population of the planet?
Unpleasant but surely its understandable
>>47957799
But anon, that's both hyperbole and not evil.
A more accurate scenario:
>would you subject one person to 1000 years of torture
>or 1000 people to one year of torture?
>>47957697
>Druids coming oh nooo
Well they're coming after someone who did a neutral act, yes? So they're evil then. Good thing we have plenty of good adventurers who will kill the evil druids.
>>47957688
You fuckers really don't understand how this shit works do you?
It's about souls. It's about the actions you take shaping your soul with the elemental form of morality. Upon your death, your soul goes to whatever afterlife your soul more strongly resonates with. The more evil it is stained with, the worse your afterlife.
Starving people deliberately is an evil act as it shows you want to inflict suffering. This taints your soul with evil.
The good stands as two people had their souls enhanced with good, while one soul was stained by more evil. This is what the over shadowed and tainted means.
Leading a stampede is an evil act as you are deliberately causing suffering upon innocents.
Animals going about their lives do not commit evil or good as they do not possess the faculties or souls to be affected by morality. Someone using an animal to cause suffering is affected by this as they do have the faculties, and soul, to be affected by objective morality.
There are nine alignments. Neutral isn't a mix of all alignments, but it is also exists where all others are absent.
>>47957820
Oh master ruseman, he who argues in the worst of faiths, please give us more of your wise musings!
>>47957799
It's still an evil act, but you probably wouldn't fall
>>47957834
>Starving people deliberately is an evil act as it shows you want to inflict suffering.
Well then, as someone who reluctantly slaughters innocents to save more innocents doesn't want to inflict suffering, his soul obviously should not be tainted with evil.
>Starving people deliberately
>you are deliberately causing
>Someone using an animal to cause suffering
So, in this objective morality, it's the intention that counts? All the insane BBEGs just suddenly gone True Neutral?
>>47957863
Wrong. The lion isn't evil because it kills the antelope, it needs to do it to survive. Go take an ethics class.
>>47957887
Killing a human is way different than an animal killing another animal, even in real world morality. don't be retarded
>>47957799
Recognize I am committing an evil act and go through with it.
Just because you're saving the world doesn't mean you aren't committing an evil act.
How hard is it to do this you fucknuckles?
>>47957921
So, saving the world can be Evil?
Congratulations, gentlemen. We have completely fucked up the concept of Evil, burning down the last bridges it had with any human understanding of the original word.
>>47957799
https://youtu.be/7CZwdJ1x1v8?t=2m47s
>>47957913
>your literal reading comprehension
You're almost right, but you focused on the wrong part of the argument. Yes, Occam's razor thus killing is wrong. Big whoop, that's boring. When presented with two options, both equally bad, you need to look where your duty lies. In the example of one person versus the planet, clearly your ethical duty lies in protecting the whole planet in spite of the wrong done to one person. Thus, the action of killing one person cannot be evil in this situation, and it would be evil to pick the one person over the lives of the whole planet. I can frame the same thing using a variety of -isms, but the point is killing one person to ensure the continued survival of your family, and to a lesser extent yourself, is never wrong.
>>47957967
--------------------> /a/
>>47957957
Can't tell if trolling or actually retarded
>>47957957
No you fucking retard.
Killing the Innocent is evil.
Saving the world is completely neutral. It's a great big mix of Good and Evil and a fuckton of shit which is neither.
You save all the Evil people and all the Good people but all you have to do is stain your soul with a single awful act of evil through murder.
>>47957975
>>47957974
Both options are evil, but obviously one is more preferable than the other, I don't see how this is a hard concept to grasp
>>47957849
Just for you, my loyal worshipper, a 10/10 shitpost to smear in your eyes.
>a herbalist sells his poutices fairly, some even given for free. His poutices are based on the common medical practices and logic in the setting (ie another herbalist would give you the same prescription). However, the collective medical knowledge is flawed and the poutice only does long term harm and is a placebo at best.
Good or evil?
>>47957974
>but the point is killing one person to ensure the continued survival of your family, and to a lesser extent yourself, is never wrong
I'd say it can very much be Evil, but it also can be Neutral, and, in exceptional circumstances, even Good. As opposed to the whole "Anyone ever suffers because of your act -> ONLY EVIL NO EXCEPTIONS" tirade that autist has been weaving.
>>47957989
Oh, so there IS a stratification of Evil now?
>>47957982
>Saving the world is completely neutral
So, destroying the world is also Neutral, as it's a great big mix of Good and Evil and a fuckton of shit which is neither? BBNGs FTW?
>>47957056
>And any amount of evil utterly taints that good rendering it null.
Not in D&D. Evil will diminish the sum of good and may indeed push it into the gray haze of Neutrality, but it also might not. Depends on goodness and evilness values.
>>47957222
>No, they are tangible forces that are in no way measurable.
Wrong. Evil, good, law, and chaos can all be detected, warded against, and determined. Hell, alignment can be literally seen with sharp enough eyes (i.e. an epic Sense Motive check result).
>No, doing a mix of good and evil things is neutral
Depends entirely on how good and how evil. Doing something extremely, supremely evil remains evil even if it has some slightly good results, because it wasn't good enough to drag it up.
>Yes, but the greater good isn't directly related to alignment. Good and Evil are measured by acts, not goals or intents
Also wrong. Intent and goals enter into it, but they are not the sum of it. Intent and actions both matter into the sum calculation of an alignment. What you do and why you do it both pertain.
>>47958031 (me)
Meant to point at >>47957242 for that last line
>>47958018
Yes its neutral, but I sure as shit am not going to let it be destroyed since I happen to like living in it.
>>47957056
>Sacrifice 10 unknowing inocents
>Save thousands
>Killing innocents is always evil
>>47958031
This
>>47957989
You don't understand what you're saying.
By saying one action is preferable, you're creating a gradient of goodness. Relative to one option, the other is objectively better. It's still evil, but less evil the first. You're literally saying that one action is intrinsically more good than the other despite framing it as evil, and as a result the less evil action is good relative to the evil one.
>>47957997
Oh absolutely, but the original point is that those constructs are relative to who perceives them because, as subjective beings, our understanding of the universe is interpreted in subjective terms. However, subjectively, and inter-subjectively, it's reasonable to assume in an extreme situation someone would kill another individual to protect themselves and their family. Assuming there are no other options, I'd argue the situation is Good. Now it can be lawyered into neutral, but Evil in this example is defined as acting in opposition to your duty. If you helped the person and let them kill your family, your actions would be evil.
>>47958048
please read
>>47957982
>>47958043
>Yes its neutral
10/10
>>47955949
The good done is per definition greater than the evil act, so good
>>47956108
>The ends do not justify the means.
Yes, they do.
The people who disagree are the ones that misunderstand what's a mean and what's an end.
>>47958064
>are relative to who perceives them because, as subjective beings, our understanding of the universe is interpreted in subjective terms
The thing is - in D&D actions are never judged from the perspective of the one who commits them. It can be done by some fundamental force, the Powers, the entire conscious Multiverse or some combination of the above. And they very much might think "Daym fuck yo family dawg these niggas here are waay more import'nt 'cause (reasons.txt)"
>>47958132
In D&D it's also that Good and Evil are not abstract concepts. They refer to specific qualities of the multiversal structure. The higher planes of the great wheel are saturated with Good, Celestials are formed from Good from the core of their being, and the same goes for Evil for the lower planes and Fiends.
To say an action is "Good" is tantamount to saying "that action is directly comparable to something an Angel might do".
>>47958132
That is a well reasoned opinion I can't really argue with. You're a cool guy, I'd buy you a beer in real life.
>>47957326
The nine D&D alignments can easily be shifted into five alignment, it's just that grogs would get pissy and say "it limits your options" while unironically supporting the idea that a character can lose progress if they lean too far outside of the "correct" alignment.
>>47957957
>So, saving the world can be Evil?
If you're performing an evil act to do so, then yes.
>>47957974
Are you familiar with the saying "lesser of two evils?"
Whichever one you choose, you're still choosing evil, similarly to a man who has to choose between saving his left leg and his right leg.
You're still performing an evil act, it's just that...it's not as bad as the other option, in your opinion.
>>47958005
>>47958064
You guys seem to thino different severities of good and evil is the same as things being morally grey. It's evil to kill an innocent to save the world, it's also evil to kill someone because you don't like them. The first option is obviously more forgivable than the latter. You don't punish a man who stole bread to feed his starving family the same way you punish a man who burned his neighbors house down to kill his family although both actions are evil
>>47958366
No, it's just that the guy I'm disagreeing with stated that there are no different levels of goodness and evil.
Okay, let's put this in a better form.
There's a magical trap that will kill 1000 innocent people if you don't kill 1 innocent person.
You try to find a way to save all 1001 individuals, but you can't and have run out of time. You kill the 1 person to save 1000.
Evil act? I think its textbook good. But eh.
>>47955949
Probably someone normal making a tough choice--something that doesn't often fit into the alignment chart.
>>47958440
You need to stop watching anime.
>>47955949
It depends purely on how justified he thinks it is.
>>47958122 >>47958322 This is how Paladins fall.
Alignments are objective, not subjective. Ends never justify means.
If you can't find find sufficient means, you look for new means.
>>47958437
It's an evil act, but you did what you could. Pretty sure allowing people to die by inaction is never considered evil. It may be unjust if you had the opportunity to help but chose not to but you generally shouldn't have game mechanic imposed survivor guilt in any system
>>47958469
>This is how Paladins fall.
Paladins only fall for two reasons.
1) They perform an evil action that causes them to lose faith in their abilities.
2) They perform an action that's at odds with their diety's views.
With that being said, it ultimately depends on the setting and the GM's views on what each alignment means, in their personal opinion.
>>47958486
>Pretty sure allowing people to die by inaction is never considered evil
WRONG. That is the definition of evil you fuckwit.
>>47958555
To me, "death by inaction" such as the example, is an evil act because its selfish. You are essentially putting your own desire to remain "pure" over the lives and well-being of countless others.
On the flipside, choosing to live with guilt but preserving a huge amount of life and sentience is the altruistic and "good" act.
But that would be my personal interpretation of how an alignment system *should* work.
>>47958634
That is exactly right.
>>47958634
I like the cut of your jib.
>>47957975
That's like telling someone to go to /his/ for referencing something from history.
>>47957029
>Evil.
Indeed. Utilitarian rationality has no place in a world of black and white morality.
You can take an Evil action for a Good cause, but your action is none the less Evil. That's why we have Chaotic Good people, to make the tough decisions.
>>47958749
>Utilitarian rationality has no place in a world of black and white morality.
Sure it does, as your contingency clause in case your moral system isn't sufficiently developed.
>You can take an Evil action for a Good cause, but your action is none the less Evil.
Wrong. Sorry anon, that's not correct. In the meta-subjective d&d sense, sure, whatever, but that qualifier is pretty wishy washy as it is.
>>47958437
True paladin would try to save everyone, sacrificing himself if need be. If he ran out of time and lost everyone, it wouldn't be the paladin's fault, it would be on the one who put their lives in danger. He tried his best. But it could still weight on his conscience.
If there's absolutely no other option than to sacrifice the one to save the rest... he would do it. And it would be an evil act, he did evil's bidding. But he could atone: he was forced by others to commit an evil deed he would never do on his own. He would do his best to right the wrong he did (ressurection exists) and to prevent such situation from ever coming up again.
>>>47958530 it ultimately depends on the setting and the GM's views
Said anyone ever to dismiss everything.
>>47958899
It's true though.
This thread is a testament to how specific actions can come up as wildly different interpretations depending on what your personal definition of good/evil is.
Ultimately, the one who decides what's good or evil is the GM since they are the one representing the world in which the situation is taking place in.
>>47955949
Depends immensely on the situation.
>>47955949
Evil. Law/Chaos depends on what the "greater good" is.
"Good" doesn't just mean "justifiable." Plenty of Evil acts are justifiable to some degree.
I've always viewed D&D alignments as intent-based utilitarianism.
Let me set up the simplest situation I can think of. You are at a railroad switch, a train will run over five people if you don't throw the switch, but if you throw the switch it'll run over one person.
>Stay, let five people die, save one.
>Switch, let one person die, save five.
There is more good in the decision to switch the tracks and let one die than to do nothing and let five people die. If the track with five people on it was obscured and you had no way of knowing about those five people then switching the track would be an evil act. Then there's some discussion on inaction vs action but I won't get into that here.
>>47958031
I don't think you know what measurable means, because you said alignments are tangible and gave no evidence they are measurable. You then continue to define things by the magnitude of good and evil weighing against each other.
Also, 3.5 is the worst edition for alignment rules. They make the least sense and are the biggest part of the system.
>>47955949
Greater Good
>>47959688
Alignment is stupid, and all of you are stupid for taking it seriously.
>>47955949
>If you have exhausted every other potential means and there really is no other way.
Still good but it's a serious hit. A truly good character will avoid this scenario whenever they can. The only thing that can pin the character into this scenario is a lack of time and resources.
>There are orders to follow, your family or friends to protect, a righteous long game at stake and this is what it takes. If an opportunity comes up to avoid this you'll take it but otherwise you'll follow through.
Probably neutral. Ultimately you and your kin come first but you want to avoid needless death if you can.
>This is the fasted and easily way to the end and thus your first resort You won't waver from your course unless something faster and easier pops up.
Most likely evil. In this case the "greater good" is a justification or delusional excuse to indulge in violence or climb to power or further some other agenda. Whatever path you take it really doesn't matter who gets hurt along the way.Note1: When I run alignments, a good or neutral character can still love violence or be ambitious but when the chips are down they will put the well being of innocents and good people above their own desires.Note2: An evil character can still feel bad about the things they do but unlike neutral or good characters they will keep doing bad things anyway. They might save a kitten or something to feel better about themselves however unless this leads to a lasting change in behaviour they will still be evil.Note3: An evil character may not necessarily be selfish. They may sacrifice greatly to further an agenda/philosophy/person but this object of sacrifice is certainly just as harmful to humanity as it is to the character. Ex: A man who puts the family name first, at the cost of the his own well being of the family members and society.
Of course this isn't the only way to do alignment but I find it works well.
