what is good? [Archive] - Wizards Community

what is good? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Rogue_Jedi_99
07-13-04, 11:26 PM I am playing a neutral good cleric of Pelor. Now I understand that to most people reading this are likely shocked that someone would play a cleric of this god. Seriously, though what I need help with is what does a neutral good charecter do? I am doing the normal good things healing children and followers during my off time, and doing good works around town tithing to the church. What else would a good cleric find themselves doing??
Trydan
07-14-04, 06:14 AM Do make the distinction between "good" and "good" (I'll use the typeface to distinguaish between the two in this post).

Good is the opposite of Evil. Some believe that these concepts are absolute, and others believe that they are subjective. The concepts here are highly debatable.

Good on the other hand is the opposite of bad. In my opinion, these describe the difference between things that are beneficial and detrimental. A "necessary evil" may be evil/good, while an "unbending moral" may be good/bad - if that makes any sense.

Alignment usually means the Good/Evil dichotomy. In this regard, you need to identify (with the help of your DM) the guiding moral principles of the society in your game world. Then, you can translate them into character concepts.

For example, imagine that "peace" and "charity" are good concepts. Then, your priest/cleric could:
Preach charity in every tavern or town square
Give away much of his acquired treasure
Always want to share his gear/food/whatever with party members
Always look for a peaceful solution to any conflict
Heal the enemies in equal measure with allies
Pray for the souls of the vanquished - whether good or bad
Give money to organisations that promote communication and understanding
etc. etc.
That should give you an idea but, as I said, do speak with your DM about the issues.
Persephone Imytholin
07-14-04, 08:48 AM I'll second Trydan's response. Talk to your DM about it.

That said, another possible interpretation of Moral Alignment (ie, G-E) is to determine who benefits from your actions.

All actions are intended to be beneficial. There's nothing to gain from simply destroying everything, so a creature will not do it. The question is what the actions seek to benefit. 'Expense', for the purposes of this post, is defined as a cost in terms of money, time, wealth, health or life.

Absolute evil can, under this model, be defined as seeking to benefit the self, regardless of expense to others.

The converse of this, Absolute good, can be defined as seeking to benefit others, regardless of expense to the self.

From these two definitions, morally neutral (the majority of people) may be defined as seeking to benefit the self without undue expense to others, which is a fairly comfortable description of most people's morals.

Still, as Trydan said, talk to your DM.
cmas3117
07-14-04, 05:47 PM Like the others, I'm going to say talk with your DM about it. If I was your DM, here's what I would say.

Good and evil are an inverse measurement of selfishness. A good person is less selfish than a neutral person is less selfish than an evil person. Explanation. A good person will go out of his way giving of himself and his own wealth, well being, resources, powers whatever to benefit others. A neutral person will do things to help others if it's not too much of a hassle to do it, but if left alone will likely stay on the sidelines much of the time, neither helping nor hindering. An evil person will go out of their way to benefit themselves no matter what, even to the extreme of harming or hindering others if there's any chance of personal profit in it.

Now that doesn't mean that an evil person can't do something good. It just means that there's going to be something in it for them if they do.

Example, an evil cleric comes upon a family that has been set upon by <fill in the blank> the father is dead trying to save his family, the mother is frightened and desperate because her only child lays wounded her life's blood staining the ground. The evil cleric seeing this situation helpfully dispatches the nasties, and in gratitude the woman promises that she would do ANYTHING to save her little girl's life. "ANYTHING? what delicious possibilities that raises," thinks the cleric, so he heals the little girl. Now here's where the fun part comes in, what kind of service might he demand of the woman for healing her daughter?

The neutral cleric in that situation might very well lend aid, but would happily accept a reward for his efforts. A good cleric would almost certainly help, and would likely (though not absolutely) refuse any reward for himself, but would instead direct the woman to offer some tithe to his church, or to lend such aid to others as she was able.

The variations are endless.

Now, we get to the meat of it. In picking a code of behavior for your character, as a dm I'm not nearly so interested in your alignment as I am in the ethos of the church you represent. That is much much more important to determining character behavior than alignment.

Let's take a Forgotten Realms example. My paladin Kethry serves Tyr (Justice, law, etc). As such, her first priority is to make sure that the government where she lives is based on law, and a system of legal government that is beneficient to the people it serves. She judges people's actions in the crucible of law and then good and evil.

Make sense?
Persephone Imytholin
07-15-04, 07:37 AM Posted by cmas3117
"Good and evil are an inverse measurement of selfishness. A good person is less selfish than a neutral person is less selfish than an evil person... [which] doesn't mean that an evil person can't do something good. It just means that there's going to be something in it for them if they do."

*points at her own post* That's basically the same thing I was getting at, but phrased differently.
dirtymc11
07-15-04, 08:12 AM I always viewed alignment as being a sort of way of showing how closely you adhere to the Morals of the society You grew up in or attatched yourself to.
Very few societies actually encourage senseless murder mayhem and the like. Most societies tend to believe in the necessity of preserving the Way of life of the society. This usually requires varying degrees of self sacrifices depending on the goals the society sets itself.
For instance can you honestly say that a Nazi soldier was necessarily Evil when he gassed a Jew. He knew he was killing a human being, but he was taught to believe that this was a case of kill or be subjugated and have your culture and way of life destoyed (I do not intend to in any way shape or form to set forth the Idea that Nazi mentality was or is okay, just that your version of good and evil will depend on your societies Moral Yardstick.)
I guess I always viewed Evil as being a conscious choice and understanding that you are doing something that is wrong but don't care because it serves your own desires.
Another way to look at it is from our own societies point of view. Some republicans might say that donating money to the poor is not a good act because it makes them dependent on the charity of others and does not make them lift themselves up and be strong on their own. It is bad because it keeps them down. They don't say its evil its just not necessarily a good thing. (ie it'd be neutral)
My take can be summed up as follows. Good is what your society has taught you to believe to be the true Ideal. good for all especially the one who benefits. Neutral would be something that your society views as falling short of the true ideal but not necessarily making things worse. To alleviate suffering but not its source. Evil would be to cause harm or deviation from the societies ideal outcome because you feel like it or don't care.

So maybe I just complicated things beyond necessity and delved into a realm that D&D isn't necessarily designed to enter, but sometimes its best to get an opinion you disagree with in order to better formulate your own.:) :)
Omonoth
07-15-04, 11:56 AM My take can be summed up as follows. Good is what your society has taught you to believe to be the true Ideal. good for all especially the one who benefits. Neutral would be something that your society views as falling short of the true ideal but not necessarily making things worse. To alleviate suffering but not its source. Evil would be to cause harm or deviation from the societies ideal outcome because you feel like it or don't care.

That seems more lawful than good really, by this standard, most if not all Baatezu would be good, cause their societies ideal is to seek world domination, and tyranny. This would be the same for illithids, who also seek world domination and the enslavement of all other species. The yougoloth ideal is evil, their race purpose is to spread evil in the multiverse. But by your definition, if spreading evil is your societies (and in this case, race) ideal, spreading evil makes you good. The tanar'ri might still be evil though, cause they don't really have a society.

My take would be to look at the examplars (archons, modrons, slaad, tanar'ri, rilmani etc.) to see what defines evil, good, neutrality, law, and chaos (in DnD, any discussion that tries to go beyond that is pointless).
dirtymc11
07-15-04, 01:12 PM Originally posted by Omonoth
That seems more lawful than good really, by this standard, most if not all Baatezu would be good, cause their societies ideal is to seek world domination, and tyranny. This would be the same for illithids, who also seek world domination and the enslavement of all other species. The yougoloth ideal is evil, their race purpose is to spread evil in the multiverse. But by your definition, if spreading evil is your societies (and in this case, race) ideal, spreading evil makes you good. The tanar'ri might still be evil though, cause they don't really have a society.

My take would be to look at the examplars (archons, modrons, slaad, tanar'ri, rilmani etc.) to see what defines evil, good, neutrality, law, and chaos (in DnD, any discussion that tries to go beyond that is pointless).

about that 1st paragraph I guess I was thinking along the lines of the old Paladin's detect evil ability which discerned intent. In such cases someone who believes they are doing a good thing by plotting the murder of someone else might not register evil. Since I looked and as per 3.5 he simply has detect evil as per spell. I guess I was wrong. Probably good you pointed this out to me before it cause problems w/ players.

As per your last sentence yep.

So to answer that original query : You should ask your DM what he expeccts from a cleric of your faith.
Persephone Imytholin
07-15-04, 01:38 PM If alignment is to actually matter, I prefer to think of it as two seperate matters. One's moral alignment is absolutely unrelated to one's ethical alignment; a factor which means I insist on writing alignments using the word 'and', except in the special case of true neutrality.

To define:
Moral Alignment :: A character's position on the axis of good vs evil; a measure of the character's selfishness or selflessness.
Ethical Alignment :: A character's position on the axis of law vs chaos; a measure of how strictly the character adheres to personal, religious or legal codes.
Self :: In this case, either the individual or a group with which the individual strongly identifies.

The true test of this is that neutral should line up with the average member of society. Let's try this - the average person is neither particularly selfish or selfless, which is a fairly simple observation. The average member of society will generally follow laws, but may break others they see as minor or unimportant.

Modrons are lawful-and-neutral. Ethically, they are inherently drawn to the preservation of pure order and will follow each and every rule without fail. Morally, a Modron is neither selfish nor selfless.

Baatezu are lawful-and-evil. Ethically, they formulate and follow - to the letter- complex codes of law. Morally, their entire existence is based on personal gain.

'loths are neutral-and-evil. Ethically, laws, agreements and contracts only count where they continue to be useful. Morally, they seek for their own gain above all else.

Tanar'ri are chaotic-and-evil. Ethically, laws, agreements, contracts and codes don't make a toss of difference. Morally, it's all about their own gain.

Slaadi are chaotic-and-neutral. Ethically, laws, agreements, codes and contracts are either useless or incomprehensible. Morally, selfishness or selflessness is either useless or incomprehensible.

I'd go around the upper planes, but they're not as fun and my time is limited. If someone else wants to have a go at it, then you'll see it pretty much works.
dirtymc11
07-15-04, 02:20 PM I guess I don't really put much emphasis on what they say their alignment is. If I judge that they are acting counter to the stated way then they have a different align. To me it's about roleplaying it, which sadly most players never do. Very few times do they stop and think about things before they do them like they would in the real world. I also think that for alot of people a too strict regulation of alignment tends to hamper roleplaying and char. devel. Most players don't think that you can be Lawful and Evil and still be a real fun guy to have a drink with. Think of any one of our politicians definitely most of them could easily be defined as LE (selfish or atlesst self serving motivations combined with obedience to the Letter of the Law). Too put too much emphasis is usually a bad thing unless playing something that requires it like a paladin. So always let people wknow your take on alignment before you start a game. As a player always ask the dm's take. In the end rare is the char othe than a cleric or paladin who actually needs bee tht concerned with alignment.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rogue_Jedi_99 07-13-04, 11:26 PM	I am playing a neutral good cleric of Pelor. Now I understand that to most people reading this are likely shocked that someone would play a cleric of this god. Seriously, though what I need help with is what does a neutral good charecter do? I am doing the normal good things healing children and followers during my off time, and doing good works around town tithing to the church. What else would a good cleric find themselves doing??
Trydan 07-14-04, 06:14 AM	Do make the distinction between "good" and "good" (I'll use the typeface to distinguaish between the two in this post). Good is the opposite of Evil. Some believe that these concepts are absolute, and others believe that they are subjective. The concepts here are highly debatable. Good on the other hand is the opposite of bad. In my opinion, these describe the difference between things that are beneficial and detrimental. A "necessary evil" may be evil/good, while an "unbending moral" may be good/bad - if that makes any sense. Alignment usually means the Good/Evil dichotomy. In this regard, you need to identify (with the help of your DM) the guiding moral principles of the society in your game world. Then, you can translate them into character concepts. For example, imagine that "peace" and "charity" are good concepts. Then, your priest/cleric could: Preach charity in every tavern or town square Give away much of his acquired treasure Always want to share his gear/food/whatever with party members Always look for a peaceful solution to any conflict Heal the enemies in equal measure with allies Pray for the souls of the vanquished - whether good or bad Give money to organisations that promote communication and understanding etc. etc. That should give you an idea but, as I said, do speak with your DM about the issues.
Persephone Imytholin 07-14-04, 08:48 AM	I'll second Trydan's response. Talk to your DM about it. That said, another possible interpretation of Moral Alignment (ie, G-E) is to determine who benefits from your actions. All actions are intended to be beneficial. There's nothing to gain from simply destroying everything, so a creature will not do it. The question is what the actions seek to benefit. 'Expense', for the purposes of this post, is defined as a cost in terms of money, time, wealth, health or life. Absolute evil can, under this model, be defined as seeking to benefit the self, regardless of expense to others. The converse of this, Absolute good, can be defined as seeking to benefit others, regardless of expense to the self. From these two definitions, morally neutral (the majority of people) may be defined as seeking to benefit the self without undue expense to others, which is a fairly comfortable description of most people's morals. Still, as Trydan said, talk to your DM.
cmas3117 07-14-04, 05:47 PM	Like the others, I'm going to say talk with your DM about it. If I was your DM, here's what I would say. Good and evil are an inverse measurement of selfishness. A good person is less selfish than a neutral person is less selfish than an evil person. Explanation. A good person will go out of his way giving of himself and his own wealth, well being, resources, powers whatever to benefit others. A neutral person will do things to help others if it's not too much of a hassle to do it, but if left alone will likely stay on the sidelines much of the time, neither helping nor hindering. An evil person will go out of their way to benefit themselves no matter what, even to the extreme of harming or hindering others if there's any chance of personal profit in it. Now that doesn't mean that an evil person can't do something good. It just means that there's going to be something in it for them if they do. Example, an evil cleric comes upon a family that has been set upon by <fill in the blank> the father is dead trying to save his family, the mother is frightened and desperate because her only child lays wounded her life's blood staining the ground. The evil cleric seeing this situation helpfully dispatches the nasties, and in gratitude the woman promises that she would do ANYTHING to save her little girl's life. "ANYTHING? what delicious possibilities that raises," thinks the cleric, so he heals the little girl. Now here's where the fun part comes in, what kind of service might he demand of the woman for healing her daughter? The neutral cleric in that situation might very well lend aid, but would happily accept a reward for his efforts. A good cleric would almost certainly help, and would likely (though not absolutely) refuse any reward for himself, but would instead direct the woman to offer some tithe to his church, or to lend such aid to others as she was able. The variations are endless. Now, we get to the meat of it. In picking a code of behavior for your character, as a dm I'm not nearly so interested in your alignment as I am in the ethos of the church you represent. That is much much more important to determining character behavior than alignment. Let's take a Forgotten Realms example. My paladin Kethry serves Tyr (Justice, law, etc). As such, her first priority is to make sure that the government where she lives is based on law, and a system of legal government that is beneficient to the people it serves. She judges people's actions in the crucible of law and then good and evil. Make sense?
Persephone Imytholin 07-15-04, 07:37 AM	Posted by cmas3117 "Good and evil are an inverse measurement of selfishness. A good person is less selfish than a neutral person is less selfish than an evil person... [which] doesn't mean that an evil person can't do something good. It just means that there's going to be something in it for them if they do." points at her own post That's basically the same thing I was getting at, but phrased differently.
dirtymc11 07-15-04, 08:12 AM	I always viewed alignment as being a sort of way of showing how closely you adhere to the Morals of the society You grew up in or attatched yourself to. Very few societies actually encourage senseless murder mayhem and the like. Most societies tend to believe in the necessity of preserving the Way of life of the society. This usually requires varying degrees of self sacrifices depending on the goals the society sets itself. For instance can you honestly say that a Nazi soldier was necessarily Evil when he gassed a Jew. He knew he was killing a human being, but he was taught to believe that this was a case of kill or be subjugated and have your culture and way of life destoyed (I do not intend to in any way shape or form to set forth the Idea that Nazi mentality was or is okay, just that your version of good and evil will depend on your societies Moral Yardstick.) I guess I always viewed Evil as being a conscious choice and understanding that you are doing something that is wrong but don't care because it serves your own desires. Another way to look at it is from our own societies point of view. Some republicans might say that donating money to the poor is not a good act because it makes them dependent on the charity of others and does not make them lift themselves up and be strong on their own. It is bad because it keeps them down. They don't say its evil its just not necessarily a good thing. (ie it'd be neutral) My take can be summed up as follows. Good is what your society has taught you to believe to be the true Ideal. good for all especially the one who benefits. Neutral would be something that your society views as falling short of the true ideal but not necessarily making things worse. To alleviate suffering but not its source. Evil would be to cause harm or deviation from the societies ideal outcome because you feel like it or don't care. So maybe I just complicated things beyond necessity and delved into a realm that D&D isn't necessarily designed to enter, but sometimes its best to get an opinion you disagree with in order to better formulate your own.:) :)
Omonoth 07-15-04, 11:56 AM	My take can be summed up as follows. Good is what your society has taught you to believe to be the true Ideal. good for all especially the one who benefits. Neutral would be something that your society views as falling short of the true ideal but not necessarily making things worse. To alleviate suffering but not its source. Evil would be to cause harm or deviation from the societies ideal outcome because you feel like it or don't care. That seems more lawful than good really, by this standard, most if not all Baatezu would be good, cause their societies ideal is to seek world domination, and tyranny. This would be the same for illithids, who also seek world domination and the enslavement of all other species. The yougoloth ideal is evil, their race purpose is to spread evil in the multiverse. But by your definition, if spreading evil is your societies (and in this case, race) ideal, spreading evil makes you good. The tanar'ri might still be evil though, cause they don't really have a society. My take would be to look at the examplars (archons, modrons, slaad, tanar'ri, rilmani etc.) to see what defines evil, good, neutrality, law, and chaos (in DnD, any discussion that tries to go beyond that is pointless).
dirtymc11 07-15-04, 01:12 PM	Originally posted by Omonoth That seems more lawful than good really, by this standard, most if not all Baatezu would be good, cause their societies ideal is to seek world domination, and tyranny. This would be the same for illithids, who also seek world domination and the enslavement of all other species. The yougoloth ideal is evil, their race purpose is to spread evil in the multiverse. But by your definition, if spreading evil is your societies (and in this case, race) ideal, spreading evil makes you good. The tanar'ri might still be evil though, cause they don't really have a society. My take would be to look at the examplars (archons, modrons, slaad, tanar'ri, rilmani etc.) to see what defines evil, good, neutrality, law, and chaos (in DnD, any discussion that tries to go beyond that is pointless). about that 1st paragraph I guess I was thinking along the lines of the old Paladin's detect evil ability which discerned intent. In such cases someone who believes they are doing a good thing by plotting the murder of someone else might not register evil. Since I looked and as per 3.5 he simply has detect evil as per spell. I guess I was wrong. Probably good you pointed this out to me before it cause problems w/ players. As per your last sentence yep. So to answer that original query : You should ask your DM what he expeccts from a cleric of your faith.
Persephone Imytholin 07-15-04, 01:38 PM	If alignment is to actually matter, I prefer to think of it as two seperate matters. One's moral alignment is absolutely unrelated to one's ethical alignment; a factor which means I insist on writing alignments using the word 'and', except in the special case of true neutrality. To define: Moral Alignment :: A character's position on the axis of good vs evil; a measure of the character's selfishness or selflessness. Ethical Alignment :: A character's position on the axis of law vs chaos; a measure of how strictly the character adheres to personal, religious or legal codes. Self :: In this case, either the individual or a group with which the individual strongly identifies. The true test of this is that neutral should line up with the average member of society. Let's try this - the average person is neither particularly selfish or selfless, which is a fairly simple observation. The average member of society will generally follow laws, but may break others they see as minor or unimportant. Modrons are lawful-and-neutral. Ethically, they are inherently drawn to the preservation of pure order and will follow each and every rule without fail. Morally, a Modron is neither selfish nor selfless. Baatezu are lawful-and-evil. Ethically, they formulate and follow - to the letter- complex codes of law. Morally, their entire existence is based on personal gain. 'loths are neutral-and-evil. Ethically, laws, agreements and contracts only count where they continue to be useful. Morally, they seek for their own gain above all else. Tanar'ri are chaotic-and-evil. Ethically, laws, agreements, contracts and codes don't make a toss of difference. Morally, it's all about their own gain. Slaadi are chaotic-and-neutral. Ethically, laws, agreements, codes and contracts are either useless or incomprehensible. Morally, selfishness or selflessness is either useless or incomprehensible. I'd go around the upper planes, but they're not as fun and my time is limited. If someone else wants to have a go at it, then you'll see it pretty much works.
dirtymc11 07-15-04, 02:20 PM	I guess I don't really put much emphasis on what they say their alignment is. If I judge that they are acting counter to the stated way then they have a different align. To me it's about roleplaying it, which sadly most players never do. Very few times do they stop and think about things before they do them like they would in the real world. I also think that for alot of people a too strict regulation of alignment tends to hamper roleplaying and char. devel. Most players don't think that you can be Lawful and Evil and still be a real fun guy to have a drink with. Think of any one of our politicians definitely most of them could easily be defined as LE (selfish or atlesst self serving motivations combined with obedience to the Letter of the Law). Too put too much emphasis is usually a bad thing unless playing something that requires it like a paladin. So always let people wknow your take on alignment before you start a game. As a player always ask the dm's take. In the end rare is the char othe than a cleric or paladin who actually needs bee tht concerned with alignment.