Alignment: Good

[tesral]

my feelings precisely, sir! well stated, and i still think that is one of the better solutions available to all gms everywhere to resolve this particular thorn. state it up front and in advance, for all to see and know.

Not everyone will agree with my definition. But the beauty of that is they are the all powerful DM of their game and can declare good and evil to be what they think they should be.

I don't think the exact definition is as important as that you have one. For me this works. I have an unambiguous standard to judge good and evil by. No one has to wonder if the act is good or evil. they can look at the standard.

[nijineko]

hm. funny. i seem to recall that that was supposed to be how it worked in this world too. but then, killing people and burning books and other similar civilized activities does have a slight inhibiting effect on the transmission of information from one generation to the next, ne?

[DMMike]

I don't think the exact definition is as important as that you have one. For me this works. I have an unambiguous standard to judge good and evil by. No one has to wonder if the act is good or evil. they can look at the standard.

Totally. Have a definition, and stick by it, especially if it means a paladin's powers are at stake. A D&D DM isn't doing his job if the good-seeking characters of the game don't know what Good is (or can't find a way to figure it out).

But for those who are confused, I'll proffer my version again:
Good is behaving in a way that only benefits someone other than the behavor.

[tesral]

Totally. Have a definition, and stick by it, especially if it means a paladin's powers are at stake. A D&D DM isn't doing his job if the good-seeking characters of the game don't know what Good is (or can't find a way to figure it out).

But for those who are confused, I'll proffer my version again:
Good is behaving in a way that only benefits someone other than the behavor.

I have a few problems with that. So someone that lives alone in the wilderness and takes care of themselves can never do a good act, but can easily do evil.

As to Paladins the standard is slightly different. They adhere to the ethos of the Church they are part of. It that ethos says to kill every mime they see, they slaughter away. Evil act it might be to kill the mime who hasn't even done walking in the wind at you, but the Will of God therefore you do it.

hm. funny. i seem to recall that that was supposed to be how it worked in this world too. but then, killing people and burning books and other similar civilized activities does have a slight inhibiting effect on the transmission of information from one generation to the next, ne?

Would be nice of people worshiping the same god would stop killing each other over the details of how. No one has ever claimed that man was a resonable creature.

[Webhead]

I have a few problems with that. So someone that lives alone in the wilderness and takes care of themselves can never do a good act, but can easily do evil.

I think such a character could certainly enact "good" or "evil" in a given situation, it's just about choice at that point. Taking care of himself, if done in "balance" with his natural surroundings strikes me as more "neutral" territory, assuming he hunts and kills for food, shelter and survival. If he hunts for sport, he is verging closer on more selfish "evil" tendancies, and if he protects other creatures of the wilderness from those who seek to rape and pillage the land, then he is verging on "good" behavior.

It's about choices.

Would be nice of people worshiping the same god would stop killing each other over the details of how. No one has ever claimed that man was a resonable creature.

Aye. I think most of this has to do with not wanting to admit to the possibility of being "wrong". "You do not think like I think and I can't be wrong, therefore, you are wrong and I must make you realize it." Senseless and tragic.

[DMMike]

So someone that lives alone in the wilderness and takes care of themselves can never do a good act, but can easily do evil.

I think webhead has a good grip on this issue. Living in the wilderness, more or less like the animals, is pretty much neutral, like the animals. You do some good, you do some evil, things balance out. If you really want an example of a Good act in the woods under my definition of Good, it would be feeding other animals, defending young from predators, or singing to the trees (instead of to yourself. I mean come on, why would you sing "Life is a Highway" to yourself?).

By the way, my definition of Good creates some interesting behavior on the part of Good creatures (angels, avatars, holy ghosts, and how could I forget - celestial summons). These creatures don't attack any living beings. Soulless and Evil creatures are fair game, but attacking a hair on a living head is Evil, and thus, not allowed. Defense, however, is. A celestial summoned creature won't engage an opponent, but it will wait by or near its charge, in case an enemy is foolhardy enough to commit an evil act. (This is a bit of two wrongs make a right, but necessary to make summoning practical for good-leaning casters).

Other interesting Good creature behaviors - self sacrifice (life, limb, or otherwise), no need to feed selves (eating is evil, but planar creatures don't need to eat), they talk like Terminators, since social engagement tends to be a source of pleasure...sounding sort of Puritan, huh?

[DMMike]

So there's a glaring problem with my last definition of Good. Probably a good thing that I found it first.

Good can't be intent to benefit others without benefitting the self. Because someone else's benefit could be an evil thing.

Example: Joe Paladin acted completely selflessly and in the interests of his friend, Barry Beholder, when he slaughtered the orphanage that was crying so much it kept Barry awake at night.

This led me to a new definition:
Good - noun - the quality possessed by someone or something that seeks to preserve others' lives at all costs.

I think this pretty clearly encompasses the typical Good acts: self-sacrifice, defense of others, helping Grandma across the street.
It does not cover non life or death issues, like returning a stolen purse. Which is probably a good thing, because in that particular example, returning a purse might not always be a good deed because:
- maybe the thief needed to feed his kids.
- or the purse's owner was an embezzler
- or by returning the purse, you were expecting a reward.

Anyway, this new definition raises a slight dilemma: Evil seems to be more than just the opposite of Good, or "the quality possessed by someone or something that seeks to cause death at all costs." I have a solution for that too, but first, feel free to discuss.

[tesral]

Too extreme. In both cases. If there is a problem with the definition, there is a problem.

Perhaps good can be as simple as the golden rule.

I've never considered good to be something that was difficult and inaccessible to the average person, or that you must wallow in sack cloth and ashes, or be utterly selfless.

Good can be as simple as wishing well to each and every person you meet. Treating as you would be treated, offering aggression to no one.

[DMMike]

Well, my new Good definition has some accessibility. It's easy enough for Joe Schmo (or Joe Paladin) to give money/food to the poor, stand up for the weak, or procreate (with the lights off and maybe a full-body sheet to prevent personal enjoyment). These are Good acts by my new definition.

I don't think the Golden Rule cuts it. Some people would like others to steal from the king and give it to themselves. The Golden Rule would then dictate that those people steal from the king, and give it to others. Does that make stealing good? Does it mean that the king deserves to see his taxes stolen, or that rich nobles need to receive the king's stolen taxes? Very gray areas, and I'd say, not necessarily Good acts.

The goal of defining Good is to have something that stands up to scrutiny, that is objective, and that makes a decent material from which to compose a Good plane of existence. My hope, and the point of this discussion, is to see if "promoting life" cuts it.

[tesral]

Well, my new Good definition has some accessibility. It's easy enough for Joe Schmo (or Joe Paladin) to give money/food to the poor, stand up for the weak, or procreate (with the lights off and maybe a full-body sheet to prevent personal enjoyment). These are Good acts by my new definition.

I don't think the Golden Rule cuts it. Some people would like others to steal from the king and give it to themselves. The Golden Rule would then dictate that those people steal from the king, and give it to others. Does that make stealing good? Does it mean that the king deserves to see his taxes stolen, or that rich nobles need to receive the king's stolen taxes? Very gray areas, and I'd say, not necessarily Good acts.

The goal of defining Good is to have something that stands up to scrutiny, that is objective, and that makes a decent material from which to compose a Good plane of existence. My hope, and the point of this discussion, is to see if "promoting life" cuts it.

stealing is aggression. Do you wish to be agressed against? It only doesn't work if you twist the meaning. Twisting the meaning is not in the spirit or the letter of the principle.

Try these few simple suggestions

"As you would wish that men would do unto you, do so to them."
First corollary of the golden rule; Your right to swing you arm ends at the other fellow's nose.

Each man demands his rights, as well he should. But if each man gave those rights to each of his fellow men, then none would need demand anything, and we would live in peace. In truth, it is better to give than receive

Do not in your haste to do right, forget to do good.

No being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another being, nor to advocate, threaten or delegate its initiation.

Good defined.

[DMMike]

No being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another being, nor to advocate, threaten or delegate its initiation.

Good defined.

For argument's sake then, these are not good acts by your definition:
1 pushing someone out of the path of a speeding car
2 putting a serial killer behind bars
3 reaping grain
4 subduing an attacker
since each of these examples involve force of one being on another. By my new definition, 1 and 4 are Good, and 2 and 3 are implicitly, but not explicitly, Good.

I'm working at providing something that doesn't rely on the spirit of the rule, since spiritual interpretation is completely subjective. I've noticed that I can easily decide what I think is a good action, but others might not agree with me, which tells me that talking about Good requires a common definition beyond gut instincts.

[raven21]

Not everyone will agree with my definition. But the beauty of that is they are the all powerful DM of their game and can declare good and evil to be what they think they should be.

I don't think the exact definition is as important as that you have one. For me this works. I have an unambiguous standard to judge good and evil by. No one has to wonder if the act is good or evil. they can look at the standard.

I agrre with you that good is a preception and that makes it easer to be good for the most part, being unrelentingly holy good is still hard.

[tesral]

since each of these examples involve force of one being on another. By my new definition, 1 and 4 are Good, and 2 and 3 are implicitly, but not explicitly, Good.

You are making a common mistake of equating any force with "initiate force". Initiate means "To start" So another way of looking at that is no one has the right to start something. The Zero Aggression Principle has no probations against defense. Once someone starts something they deserve what they get back.

1 pushing someone out of the path of a speeding car Could be considered starting something but once the circumstances are known, I think they will forgive you.

2 putting a serial killer behind bars: They started it. No problem.

3 reaping grain: Grain is not a person, grain has no rights. Grain is property, if yours you have every right to reap it.

4 subduing an attacker: They started it, they get what you you dish, not a problem.

Each of your examples comes from misunderstanding the principle, or even trying to twist the principle to mean something else, in other words rules lawyering.

[nijineko]

niji eyes the discussion, and decides to stay out. while this one agrees with tesral, the examples this one would bring to the table, would likely inflame a heated response, from those who do not grasp, or agree with, the principle being discussed. ^^

[DMMike]

niji eyes the discussion, and decides to stay out. while this one agrees with tesral, the examples this one would bring to the table, would likely inflame a heated response, from those who do not grasp, or agree with, the principle being discussed. ^^

Boooo!

Tesral, in an indirect way, your definition is evolving, which is good. These are the changes I'm seeing-

"No sentient being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate offensive force against another sentient being, nor to advocate, threaten or delegate its initiation."

However, I still see some problems cropping up. Putting a serial killer behind bars is not inherently a good act. It is closely related to defending others, which is an inherently good act. But putting someone behind bars is closer to the Two Wrongs Make a Right principle, which some would call Good, others would call Evil.

Rules lawyering would actually make this subject a lot simpler. Not possible though, because the rules on Good and Evil, if any, are too ambiguously worded to be lawyerable.