Killing innocents for the greater good

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.

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.

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.

He really did nothing wrong there.

Alignment is just a guideline. It's not going to fit into every situation.

Chaotic Anime

Any non-Good.

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.

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.

Good and Evil are measurable quantities in D&D.
The "greater" Good is quite literally whatever result has more Good in it than Evil.

How about you go back to your containment board?

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.

This

Evil. There is a lot of situations where the alignment system fails, but this isn't one of them.

Also 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.

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.

>Kantian morality
>Absolute shit tier

Lawful Neutral

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.

Any Evil.

Slaughtering innocents for the greater good is evil.

"To save a family, abandon a man; to save the village, abandon a family; to save the country, abandon a village"

>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.

>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.

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.

Can you explain your reasoning behind Yhorm and the princes

>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.

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?

Lawful Neutral

>"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.

Depends on if they do a fake limp when they get out of the car.

>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.

To save the world, save the cheerleader.

Forkrul Assail

>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.

Unaligned, like 99% of actions.

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.

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.

>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 Veeky Forums and leave this thread alone.

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.

>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.

Dang
>disruption
*description

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.

>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.

Lawful neutral, generally, but it can fall onto true neutral or chaotic neutral as well.

>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.

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.

There are no "Lawful Good" acts in 5e. 5e alignment describes general attitude, not acts.

>Abyss Watchers are LN.

Why not LG?

Chaotic flipping.

>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.

>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.

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.

They did the right thing but with a lot of blood of innocents. And it was their fetish.
>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.

>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

>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?

>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.

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.

Good luck with those Druids coming after you.

>D&D alignment works on Objectivist level
Yes.

No. Get out.

>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.

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.

> 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.

Kill 1 person to save the entire population of the planet?

Unpleasant but surely its understandable

But user, 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?

>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.

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.

Oh master ruseman, he who argues in the worst of faiths, please give us more of your wise musings!

It's still an evil act, but you probably wouldn't fall

>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?

Wrong. The lion isn't evil because it kills the antelope, it needs to do it to survive. Go take an ethics class.

Killing a human is way different than an animal killing another animal, even in real world morality. don't be retarded

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?

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.

youtu.be/7CZwdJ1x1v8?t=2m47s

>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.

--------------------> /a/

Can't tell if trolling or actually retarded

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.

...

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

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?

>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.

Oh, so there IS a stratification of Evil now?

>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?

>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.

>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.

(me)
Meant to point at for that last line

Yes its neutral, but I sure as shit am not going to let it be destroyed since I happen to like living in it.

>Sacrifice 10 unknowing inocents
>Save thousands
>Killing innocents is always evil