From the recent discussion that arose in another thread, perhaps people would like to discuss the difference between good and evil.

For instance, killing an evil person.  Is that an evil act?  What does the other person have to do to be evil enough to warrant killing?  If they're a hobgoblin, is that enough?  If they're crunching on human bones, is that enough?  Attacking farmers?  Stealing loaves of bread?  What if the evil person has committed the horrific evil crime of worshipping an evil god, then goes around and tells everyone and makes it sound cool and counterculture and now the kids in town are starting to "ironically" worship the evil god and aren't worshipping properly anymore -- can a good person cut off the rot at its source and kill that evil dude?

It is not the dead itself that matters for good or evil. It is the thoughts behind them. A good person may kill evil for the sake of the world, while an evil one may kill them because they are there, or to farther their plots. At least that is the way I understand it. Good would kill the goblins to rid the world of a problem, while evil would do it because they could. Just a couple of examples.

A good person can kill an evil one without needing more justification then "It's the right thing to do". Then again, D&D this logic does not seem to apply. All that dungeon raiding is sometimes killing creatures just defending their home...

Makes me wonder Darth Vader's alignment? Definitly lawful, but good or evil?

True alignment is subjective. Everyone sees themselves as doing good, doing what is right. In game terms, alignment is how everyone else perceives you according to their standards. Arguments of alignment are why, in my games, I either don't worry about them, or do a dynamic alignment system where players earn/are penalized points based on their actions.

Darth as far as in Imperial space would be Lawful Neutral, at the top. He doesn't use the Law (Imperial law) to do good, he is a Sith, who are all 'might makes right', so he'd err to evil just for that more than anything else. Yes, he does break alignment to save Luke and find redemption in Return of the Jedi, a final act that is 'Good' (he takes the Emperor's Force Lightning in defence of another, even if it is his son).

I won't go into the moral implications of what makes good or evil, but rather point out the split that doing Good alignment-wise generally means being charitable, helping people in a selfless way and generally being willing to sacrifice to help another. Evil acts are causing pain and damage for the lulz and doing acts which cause grief to others but better yourself because you can.

Is killing an act of good? Hm, not really as written, but killing someone or something that's been going about doing evil as written above, especially if that evil one has been killing others, that would probably be an act of good as you're doing an act to save others, such as killing a dragon as they've killing a bunch of people in a nearby village. That would be a good act to help the village. Long as you're not killing the dragon because of something like 'killing is awesome' in doing it, it'd be an act of good. Otherwise, you would be erring to an evil act justified as a good one.

Again, real life is much more complex, but thats a can of worms I'll stay away from.

Alignment is really only appropriate in games where there are real and active deities that delineate good and evil, law and chaos.  Such a system system does not brook any relativistic argument (sure, that guy thinks committing genocide is a good act, but the deities of good can tell you it isn't) and makes arguments pointless.

Almost everyone sees themselves as the good guy, which is largely true, but there are two aspects to that I'll cover.

Good and Evil isn't exactly correct.  Both are good.  The question is who are they good for?  The typical definition of "good" is "good of the many" while "evil" is "good for onself".  Law and chaos can similarly be divided up as action within and outside of established social constructs.  So... Lawful good is the good of the many by working within social constructs.  Chaotic evil is the good of oneself by any means, including those outside of social constructs.

"Good" is what your deity tells you it is.  If you worship an evil god and you follow his or her teachings, you will get the afterlife that he or she promised you (mostly, anyway).  In most game cosmology, you go to your god and get rewarded or punished according to their desires.

So... alignment is absolute, but the perception of alignment will vary depending on ones worldview and deity.

^ This. You nailed it right on the head with that paragraph. Of course when you think Lawful, you think of good laws that benefit society, but the Empire in Star Wars happened to be the social construct for the majority (The Sith itself built around a philosophy of 'good for oneself') where the Rebel Alliance was Chaotic there, going against the majority to benefit those stepped down upon.

Of course there's also the tale of the builders still on the Death Star constructing it when those Rebel Alliance villians came and destroyed it, that poor builder was just in for some contract work to feed his family, he wasn't in the whole Imperial thing, he was just doing a job for coin when some radicals took his life...

Perception is kinda a funny thing sometimes ;)

Interesting comments. I had a lawful evil wizard who eventually turns lawful good according to some of them. Unless he saves the world time and time again to rule it. Idk I am not a philosopher. I never liked the d&d alignment system anyway.

Maybe the fact that his base island is a bunch of undead to serve him helps keep him lawful evil @.@

Evil is the intentional bringing of harm (Not necessarily physical, it could be psychological or financial such as torture or theft, or it could be social, such as bearing false witness.) to an entity capable of expressing its distaste with the idea (though not necessarily through speech, whimpers will do) without justification.

Race is not a justification. Religion is not a justification. Any categorization of an individual into a group that is 'prone to evil' is not a justification. Punishment for a crime is, as long as it is proveable. Self defense is a justification, but I consider that derived from punishment for the crime of attempting to bring harm (such as by assault or theft) to the defender. In short, you don't go attacking beings because they are this or that, you go attacking beings because they have done this or that.

The other thing to consider about alignment is that it doesn't represent ONE value. It's actually a mix of Morals (Good Vs Evil) and Ethics (Law Vs Chaos).

Also, what's evil for one person isn't evil for what's another. If you grew up being taught and believing that might makes right, how is it evil to prove your superiority by enslaving others? To you, it's not evil, however, to others, it is. Again, it's all subjective.

In reply to Genghis the Hutt (msg # 1):

There is no difference because they are the same: they are imaginary. They are human constructs used to organize our thoughts and to justify the allocation of resources to those in power.

the 'you' in your example that believes it isn't evil is wrong. The only variable is what you mean by slavery. The slaver is under no obligation to preserve their wellbeing in any way, but not doing so (feeding them regularly and only punishing them for valid reasons, treating them with dignity and so forth) is likely to be evil. If they're working to pay off a crime they committed, that's... less unjustified than slavery I suppose. I get that you're trying to justify slavery because a of a misguided opinion on the part of the slaver, but his opinion doesn't affect whethere there's any justification for any treatment he gives the slaves.
This message was last edited by the user at 02:06, Mon 21 July 2014.

You're still looking at it from an outside, objective point of view. You have to look at it subjectively from the point of the person doing it.

True and do not shoot me for this. How many dictators considered themselves good? For example Hitler. Germany considered him good, most people consider him evil.

Exactly. Another good example is the Spanish Inquisition. It was done by the Catholic Church. Not to mention The Crusades. All these atrocities in the name of "God."