Good acts

[Frances]

I was reading through the [thread=282017]Regarding Poison[/thread] thread and read about how using poison was an evil act.  I was reminded how creating undead was an evil act, and someone mentioned how Speak with Dead was an evil act.  Someone (probably Dorg) mentioned how an evil character committing a good act as part of some overall evil scheme was acceptable.

So I've started wondering, what is a good act?  Something an evil character picks up a good point for doing, even if it is part of his evil scheme (just like someone conducting torture or using poison would pick up an evil point, even if he's just doing it for the greater good).

I'm thinking there should be acts, that if your character does them, she gets an evil point or a good point, regardless of her long term goals.  It's that bad feeling in your heart after you've used that poison on them and heard them screaming in pain (until you stabbed them in the heart, which you could do while they were so distracted), or that warm fuzzy you got after you helped that poor orphan, and he gave you the sweetest smile you've ever seen.

[Acacea]

*makes a strangled noise to prevent herself from rebelling against the Speak With Dead declaration*

[darkstorme]

My usual condition for a good act is if your character does something good for another person (or people) from which they expect to receive no benefit other than the knowledge that they did something good; even moreso if the act was inconvenient or actually detrimental to your character.

For example, an character is alone, venturing into a cave for gems under the cover of an invisibility spell.  The cave is miles from any town.  They pass an orc campsite in the cave, and see that they have a prisoner, bound and unconscious, who appears to be a homeless person.  Getting her to freedom might attract the orcs' attention, and would certainly ruin any chance of getting the minerals this time around.

If the character frees her anyway, despite the risk, and lets her go without seeking to capitalize on the possible good word she could spread, that's a good act.  If the character is an evil character, it's even possibly an alignment violation.

As an example, in one quest I was running, the villain of the piece set fire to a warehouse.  The characters were starting to have to roll to avoid taking heat damage or suffering reduced consciousness from smoke inhalation.  The villain smashes out a window and makes her escape.  The characters go to follow her, but one of them remembers the warehouse occupants, and went back into the dangerous area to find them, untie them, and get them to safety.

Is it a more difficult thing to achieve than Evil?  Absolutely.  Evil is supposed to be the easy way.  But Good is supposed to be, ultimately, more rewarding because you stick to your moral guns.

[drakogear]

Concerning the "Speak with Dead": Suppose mainly cause I'm still trying to get my Cleric/Wizard passed with his studies of life and death. Still thinking of changing him from Lucinda to Aragen... but that beside the point here.

I have a thought how the Speak with Dead spell would be possibly a little less evil. After getting the information you need. One could continue on with his last question by asking the dead if there is anything it wanted. Asking for the dead mans last dieing wish as it were.

Example: The dead speaks of a letter or poem it wrote for a loved one and wanders if they well ever get it. Search body, find letter and deliver it to the loved one... possibly with word of the writers death.

disrupted the dead to gain information = Evil

fulfill the dieing/dead mans dieing wish = Good

Not expecting any reward for fulfilling wish = more good

[Dezza]

I would say in that respect if a soul called out to you to fulfill their dying wish that would be good, but to speak with a dead creature in order to ask them if there is anything they want you to finish for them...well thats evil, you are disturbing the dead.

[drakogear]

Well... kinda already disturbed the dead to get the information. Was merely thinking why not use that opportunity to do some good? Sorta like repaying the dead for there help or to try to make amends for disturbing the dead even if they did not give you the information you wanted.

Not trying to make any excuse to make "Speak with dead" a good thing. just merely say... neutralize it.

If alignment is that of a moral compass then one who disturbs the dead for what ever reason (evil) strives to make amends (good) would mostly fall under neutrality... right?

Especially a TN who as described in Lore is roughly... unpredictable. May do one or... or might do the opposite.

[Pseudonym]

Is it evil? Why is it evil?

From dandwiki;

If the creature's alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive.
...
This spell does not let you actually speak to the person (whose soul has departed). It instead draws on the imprinted knowledge stored in the corpse. The partially animated body retains the imprint of the soul that once inhabited it, and thus it can speak with all the knowledge that the creature had while alive.

If the questioner and 'questionee' have differing alignments, the questionee gets a save. Not otherwise. Doesn't that imply the pain, the wrench, the trauma of the questioning is not from the questioning itself but instead only from some lack of harmony, some incongruity between the entities involved?

I'd have thought this one example where, given the inanimate nature of the matter involved, this particular question of good and evil is all about the ends over the means.

Sorry about the thread derail. Acacea * started it.






* almost

[Dorganath]

You're not calling back a soul and questioning that, you're disturbing the remains of a deceased being and extracting information from that corpse.  As the corpse has no "last requests" there's really no balancing it out.

It's "evil" simply because the prevailing opinion about death and the remains of those who have died involves treating them with some measure of respect, not just as some inanimate object no different than a rock or a tree branch. You're intentionally desecrating/disturbing the remains of the deceased. It's as simple as that.

I don't expect that this view is held universally, nor is it necessarily supported or refuted by general D&D rules. It is a "house rule" for our setting, and since it is not in conflict with any mechanics and can't be done without GM supervision anyway, I don't really see the problem.

But this is a hijack to the original question.

When discussing what is "good" and what is "evil", one cannot simply separate the means and the action taken from the ends. It's all sort of mixed together.

For example, a man gives a hungry orphan an apple.  Is this good? Many would think so...until you find out that there's a second orphan that he intentionally didn't give an apple to as well for no reason other than he didn't like the second orphan.  Is that still good?  Is it evil to have withheld food from the hungry orphan?  A "good" act would have been for the man to cut the apple in half and give to each orphan.

Another person gives to charity.  Is that good? Possibly, but why? Maybe the donation was in return for some other favor from the charity that furthered the person's own, greater goals, whether a bribe or "hush money" or whatever.

This gets back into the whole alignment issue and the motivations of characters based on their alignments.

An Evil-aligned character who does a "good" act for selfless reasons should, in fact, be nudged toward Good.  However, if the same act is done for selfish, personal reasons (i.e. furthering some goal) than it is not really a "good" act after all, is it?  It may seem so, but the ends and the means cannot be really separated when discussing whether something is good or evil.

If a criminal shoots a person in order to rob that person and a police officer shoots the criminal in order to protect the community from said criminal, which is good and which is evil? Killing a person could be considered evil, and in this case, both the criminal and the police officer killed someone.  Yet the motivation of the criminal was robbery and personal gain, whereas those of the police officer were protective and preventative.

Same action, different motivations. One "good", one "evil"

Personally, I have to look at both the end-result and the intent. I also personally shy away from mechanical or automatic alignment shifts for actions, because people have used such things to enact an unapproved change in alignment.

[Frances]

An Evil-aligned character who does a "good" act for selfless reasons should, in fact, be nudged toward Good.  However, if the same act is done for selfish, personal reasons (i.e. furthering some goal) than it is not really a "good" act after all, is it?  It may seem so, but the ends and the means cannot be really separated when discussing whether something is good or evil.

So, is there an equivalent evil act?  Something that's evil, unless you're doing it for a good end?  The logical side of me wants there to be balance, good vs. evil with equal strengths and weaknesses to each.  However...

Evil is supposed to be the easy way.  But Good is supposed to be, ultimately, more rewarding because you stick to your moral guns.

I think this is closer to the way things are.  Evil vs. good isn't just played with different tools for each side, each side has different rules, almost as if each were playing different games.  I think we're saying evil can do good, and stay evil, but good can't do evil and remain good.  It would appear to me that evil is indeed the easier way... so why are so many (in my opinion) characters good?

[darkstorme]

I should add to my earlier statement that it's not that a character who isn't evil cannot perform an evil act with good intentions - there's a road famously paved in this respect.

But, as Dorganath pointed out, Speak With Dead, Animate Dead, and other acts involving the desecration of corpses are Evil in our setting.  It's not a moral grey area - if your intentions are good, you're still doing Evil in an effort to do Good.  

As a parallel, one can pull out an old reliable moral question - a bad guy has set plans in motion that will hurt or kill a great many people.  He knows how to stop those plans, and you have him captive and completely at your mercy.  You could torture him to get the information out of him, but you still couldn't be sure that it would work.  You can be sure that torturing him is an evil act.  So the question then becomes whether your character is willing to step over that line for whatever the stakes are.  If your character is Good-aligned, it's hard to imagine stakes high enough to justify the crime against nature that is animating the dead.

[Dorganath]

So, is there an equivalent evil act?  Something that's evil, unless you're doing it for a good end?  The logical side of me wants there to be balance, good vs. evil with equal strengths and weaknesses to each.  However...

How about my criminal/police example?  The act is killing.  Society regards killing as "evil", in a generic sense.  Yet it's not evil that a police officer kills a violent criminal in the course of protecting the rest of the citizens (i.e. the greater good). In actuality, individuals see good and evil as shades of grey, on the whole.  

To extend my example, some would view the police's killing of the criminal to be evil, as no one has the right to take the life of another, while others may place less value on the life of a violent criminal than on the innocent victim, and thus would consider the criminal's life forfeit.  The example would get even more muddied if the criminal in question was only trying to feed his family and accidentally shot the victim rather than doing so purposefully.  The robbery was still done for selfish reasons, though not nearly as selfish as if he only robbed for himself. The killing was not intended, though the criminal brought a loaded gun to commit the crime, so there was means and perhaps some intent.  But regardless, what now is the interpretation of the action of the police?  Was it still protecting the greater good? Or was it in fact evil, since now a family is worse off than it was before? In my personal opinion, the police's actions there were not evil, as the intent was not there even if the ends were rather negative.

Confused yet? *smiles*

The point is, actions that sometimes seem "good" or "evil" aren't always so.

[Lance Stargazer]

Originally Posted by Dorganath
To extend my example, some would view the police's killing of the criminal to be evil, as no one has the right to take the life of another, while others may place less value on the life of a violent criminal than on the innocent victim, and thus would consider the criminal's life forfeit.

Why does this sounds as Aeridin vs Toran ?

Another example of how good can be seen from diferent points of view? ( er and one a bit more layo oriented )

[darkstorme]

I think this is closer to the way things are.  Evil vs. good isn't just played with different tools for each side, each side has different rules, almost as if each were playing different games.  I think we're saying evil can do good, and stay evil, but good can't do evil and remain good.  It would appear to me that evil is indeed the easier way... so why are so many (in my opinion) characters good?

And double-posting, because this is a good question.  The answer, I think, has to do with the artificial nature of PC creation.  Bear in mind, PCs are a fraction of one percent of the population.  Most people in Layonara are merchants, craftspeople, farmers, soldiers, guards, shipwrights, carpenters, etc.  PCs are that unusual few who have the potential to become legends.

And mythical/legendary figures, often, are Good.  Part of the mythos that surrounds them is the fact that they stuck to a moral code, even if it meant their death.  There are real-life figures who became legendary - Captain Oates, Horatio Nelson, John Chapman, among others.  They doubtless had human failings, but their legends do not - and D&D (and Layonara in particular) is a chance to play the legends.  People who really are good all the time, despite detriment or temptation.  People who cannot stand by when they can help their fellow sapients.

Our characters really are just that - characters in a story.  They can have failings added to them, of course, at their author's discretion.  But they can also be the heroes.  And therein lies, I think, the reason why so many PCs are Good - there's a great appeal to being the hero.

[drakogear]

Hm, good guys doing evil to do good and evil guys doing good to do evil?

Think I can sum up some proper alignment choices for them.

First: The vigilantism of the Chaotic good. Example? Comic super heroes. Batman, Punisher. They do evil with the intention to do good.

Second: The manipulative that is Lawful Evil Example? Um, Godfathers and Mafia men? At least I've always seen them as such.

Then you have your pure good and evil.

Pure Good: Lawful Good

Pure evil: Chaotic Evil

Note: Chaotic evil is a prohibited alignment.

[darkstorme]

I think you missed the points being made, drakogear.

One point was that committing Evil acts to do good doesn't make the acts Good.  Antiheroes like the Punisher or the Watchmen are not Chaotic Good - at best, they fall somewhere in the Neutral space.

The Punisher, in particular, I would classify as probably Lawful Evil.  He has a code that he abides by, but he has absolutely no limits when it comes to people who he's chosen as enemies.  Murder, extortion, torture, kidnapping - regardless of his goals, these are Evil acts that he doesn't even hesitate before committing.  That his end goals are, generally speaking, good (the elimination of the criminal class) doesn't mean that he, as a character, is any less evil.

Good characters show mercy to surrendered enemies, and don't adopt the villains' means to beat them.

I would write more, but it's hijacking the thread, and it's late.