Is killing one hundred innocent people to save one thousand innocent people lawful and/or good?

lawful neutral

It depends entirely on the circumstances. A pure disconnection of 100 living beings dying to save 1000 can mean anything, and alignments were a mistake.

It's neutral, because you can see it as good or bad from your specific point of view.

Motivation doesn't matter in DnD, only actions

Does it work?

>chaotic good
Alignment makes no sense and you can justify literally any kind of behaviour under any of the alignments.

if you go to a hospital to visit a friend and they catch and kill you to harvest your organs to save a bunch of other people, is that lawful good?

It's utilitarian. Probably not lawful and arguably not good

Nasu literally isn't using D&D alignments. The words are the same but the meaning behin them is different.

I would argue it could be lawful evil. Its a morally bad decision, to protect the greater mass of society. Refusing to bring in 100 refugees during a famine, while you are carefully rationing food so as to allow as many people as possible to survive, even though it will kill them is morally wrong (you are placing more value on certain lives over others) however, it is lawful, since you have no compulsion to help them in the slightest.

Depends who you're killing. EMIYA is Lawful Neutral are killing a few thousand terrorists, but when EMIYA Alter kills a few hundred good people to save the world from a galactic level threat he's suddenly chaotic evil.

For those placed in charge of safeguarding others, such as whoever would be in charge of rationing food, it is a moral duty to place those they've been charged with protecting protected. It's batshit insane to claim it's evil to not throw open the storehouses in a famine. You're arguing that everyone should all starve because people outside the purview of the first actor didn't have the goddamn foresight to plan for this themselves.

Nasu might as well be using them because they don't mean shit in his work and they don't mean shit in D&D.

Is killing a small country's worth of people to kill one bad woman good or evil?

No, I'm saying its morally wrong to value lives differently. And I view the Good/Evil axis using morality. Whether an action is good or evil ignores your position in society.

Okay, lets expand the line. Rations permit the 1000 to eat comfortably, with a small surplus in case of emergencies. Is it evil to turn them away now, since you could accommodate them, but it would cause the 1000 to move onto lower rations.

You turn them away because you have no idea how long this famine will last. Unless whatever you've got stored is perishable and plentiful enough that it'll go to rot before you eat it all. In which case is the rationing even necessary?

>On the topic of RPGs, it seems to me that everyone has a part of them that is looking for an excuse, a rationalization or a good story that will allow them to use violence in a way they know is wrong. Sometimes it's "lighten up, it's just a game", sometimes it's "that's what my character would do" or "it's them or us". Once you start looking for the way that people tell stories about themselves and the people they don't like to justify violent actions you notice that it's everywhere.

Isn't that the whole motivation behind most RPGs having entire races of not!humans who are defined as 100% evil and can be slaughtered en masse for loot and fun without a second thought?

Yes. And I will remind you, the "lawful" part is the law of MY judgment.

The mistakes from that idiot and Kiritsugu is simple: My wife, my children, and anything is close to me are valued not equal to one, but unlimited.

Hence, killing a few to save a ten is okay.
But killing my family to save this world? Fuck that shit.

>you stupid fucking asshole
take your meds autist

Absolutely.

Yeah, it has basis in fantasy literature since it'd be bad to kill humans en masse, not so much absolutely always evil creatures. Also not racist to do so.

But that wasn't EMIYA's problem. His problem was that he was eternally stuck getting into the type of situations described in the OP.

Murder is evil.
Saving people is good.

While murder is the greater evil, even if saving people was worth 0.1 goodness, while murder was 1 evilness?

The numbers would still balance it out, leaving it a neutral act.

It is absolutely racist. Stop conflating *ist with bad.

Yes, absolutely. Sometimes there's absolutely no other option.

If you're left with the choice of "Kill three people to save four" or "Do nothing, everyone dies", it is your moral right to kill the three people. In brutally absolute terms, you have no choice.

It's like if you're supporting two people about to plunge to their death on one hand, and supporting one of the other. If you have to release one hand, it is only morally correct to release the one with less people, so you save two rather than one. It's not a situation you want to be put in, but there you go.

There is literally nothing wrong with being racist. As a Chinese, I would save the life of a Chinese man over an Arab man, without hesitation. If they were complete strangers, I would move to save the Chinese man first.

Not sure if you're the guy I was responding to, but I have to admit that the idea of a race of creatures who are like humans in some aspects but hardwired to be evil and therefore can only be dealt with by mass genocide strikes me as odd. Of course it's justified by the internal logic of a setting were good and evil are actual objective forces but at the end of the day it's just a convenient excuse to indulge in mass violence that would otherwise be condemnable. I think it's mostly fine as long as you don't take the setting too seriously or start thinking that the stuff you do when playing actually means anything about real life situations.

See, I just like killing things in fantasy. I don't really need any true justification. But I agree that there's something satisfying about a certain type of enemy you can mow down with no pity, no remorse and absolutely no mercy.

>Chinese
>Human

Please, Kiara said her cult was composed of the best scientists, politicians etc, and that EMIYA gunned his way through a building to kill her. He probably killed a few hundred at most.

Is this the Nasuverse thread?
Stat me

>lawful
What's the law around those parts? Unless you're talking about the overarching moral law, in which case
>good
Depends entirely on your intentions. If you killed a hundred people with intention of saving a thousand, that is, if you did it out of love for humans in general, it is good. If you killed a hundred people with the intention of fulfilling some ulterior motive, and saving a thousand people wasn't your main motivator, it is not good. If you choose not to sacrifice a hundred people for the thousand it's still moral if it is motivated by your love for humans, and vice versa.

It's not slaughtering them, it's not murdering them, it's sacrificing them.

The question isn't "would you go out of your way to kill 100 people on the off-chance you save 1000?"

You know they are going to die. It's an immediate choice that requires an immediate action.

Who are you to arbitrarily decide the value of human life?

For every thousand people, maybe one has the potential to cure a disease that'll rescue millions. Doesn't that mean that one person should be protected over a thousand? Well in your example, if he's part of the one hundred, he's dying for simply not being in the group of higher numbers.

Fact of the matter is: There's no easy answer.

It's inherently good to save others, but taking innocent lives is wrong, so it just comes down to whether or not you buy into the 'ends justify the means' policy.

A philosophical argument that the dnd alignment grid simply wasn't built to deal with.

Personally I think it's the height of narcissism to make that decision, to think any one person has the right to, but would I feel the same way in practice? Who knows.

It's a matter of perspective

If you're in a position were you absolutely have to kill a hundred people to save barely 10x that many, you're really bad at this hero thing and should seriously consider an alternate career.

Okay Shirou.

Depends on the situation.

If your character is a utilitarian then yes

>2017
>using alignments

>Lmao sabe eberyone ignore the actual question xDDD
>Calls others naive and stupid

Fuck that, I'm just here to kill shit.

>A Good person would sacrifice their own strength trying to save everyone.

Trolley problem

Turning them away is a neutral act, evil if the hero is among them. Letting them in is a good act. If you can't disconnect your edgy brain parasite for 5 seconds to think in narrative terms you shouldn't be anywhere near an alignments discussion.

depends on the character's philosophy. It could be argued either way, case in point, its being argued about right now. Questions like that aren't meant to be asked when using such a simplistic system like alignment.

There is everything wrong with what you just said. First of all, you're not even talking races, you're talking nationalities. if an asian man was an arab muslim, and an middle-eastern guy had lived his whole life in China, you'd be looking at the same situation. Would you prefer the person of your race or the person of your culture?

And even then, that doesn't even take into account what kind of people they are. Maybe a middle-eastern zealot in an acclaimed medical practictioner who has saved lives with no regard for who they were, while the chinaman is a medicated psychopath with a kill count of innocents.

Moral dilemmas aren't helped at all by racist thinking.

Not him, but his scenario stipulated he knew none of those factors. Two guys, strangers, save one.

Rick and Morty did this, the Vindicators destroyed an entire planet's populace just to kill one universe-level villain that was a shapeshifter. on their perspective and the rest of the universe, it was the right call. they could have called Rick, who could have built a device to identify him, they didn't have rick on PURPOSE because they don't like him.

This. Sometimes there isn't a third option. You're obligated to act in the way that does the least harm. Doctors do this every day in triage scenarios, and it does hurt you mentally.

Let's take a slightly more interesting scenario, since good is 'self sacrificing'.

You're in a naval battle, and an enemy ship is attacking a search and rescue vessel carrying 1000 refugees. You command a warship with a crew of 100. The battle is hopeless, your vessel is fast enough to disengage but if you were to ram the enemy ship, the SnR vessel would likely be able to escape.

Do you sacrifice yourself and the lives on your crew? Does this change the answer to OP's question, and if so, why?

No.

The more people you save the less personal your deed will be.

The more people die, the less a single death matters.

The death of one is a tragedy but the death of thousands is a statistic.

To be good you need to find one person to care about and protect their life above all others.

>Doctors do this every day in triage scenarios
what doctors do is save one instead of another.
Not actively kill one to save others.

This desu

STR: B
END: A
AGI: B
MGI: E
LCK: E
NP: A

The singular existence best equipped to tell good from evil is the all-knowing Lord God, whose eternal kingdom is the destination of all people good and righteous.

And since God is the only existence that could possibly be counted on to fairly and accurately pass judgement on anyone, the most good endeavor you could ever undertake is to bring all the world's people to his grace, as the presence of God and a place in his realm is the highest blessing anyone could ever hope to have bestowed upon them in this life or the next.

And so, logically, you should kill everyone. Maybe it causes pain and suffering, and maybe you damn yourself for whatever reason, but anyone you kill will either have been good, in which case they will be rewarded accordingly in the afterlife by God, who is the highest authority on morality in all the cosmos, or they will have been evil, in which case they will most certainly get their just desserts.

A truly good character would find a way to save everyone with no sacrifices.

I'd say this is probably the correct answer in terms of how the DnD alignments actually work. The alignment system is still stupid though.

Have you guys literally never heard of the trolley problem before? Or are you one of those that claim that the dilemma is a "strawman" and refuse to believe that a comparable scenario could ever possibly occur in real life?

The only one arbitrarily deciding the value of human life in this conversation is you, the moment you bring in the example about the one with the cure. The point of the "kill 100 to save 1000" scenario is that you acknowledge that it is not your place to decide that any person there is worth more or less than any of the others.

...

A trolley is headed towards 10 doctors tied to the tracks. You can pull a lever to redirect the trolley onto another track, where it will hit 11 hobos instead. You can also choose to complain about the moral dilemma being beneath your dignity, but if you do all the doctors and hobos die and also you die. Do you pull the lever?

Chaotic Evil / Chaotic Neutral

I leave the lever and go after the person who tied up those people.

true neutral

The whole point of the trolley problem is to challenge people who believe in the NAP as an absolute.

They were tied to the tracks by 10 doctors 11 hobos and yourself when you were hallucinating on Ambien.

how competent are these doctors

The only correct answer

...

...

When i think about it, the question isn't framed
>99 innocents and one villain to save 10-100x more
Its framed more alongside the lines if:
>If you are on a cruiseship at sea, and there is a bunch of badass super cultists there, would you have your doomsday fight on said boat, risking everybody who is just a bystander
>Or do you risk fighting once you dock, endangering a bigger amount of innocents in the harbor town
>Or risk a even bigger amount of people by waiting for them to go to their plan, or maybe even succeed?
At which point, you have the option to select the amount of bystanders there will be, and chance of success. And Falling as a Paladin is NOT a option, simply because the way of actions is set in a deterministic pattern.
Delaying, such as evacuating or converting minions, costs time.
If setting up battleground on landing was a thing, there would be no dilemma.
If their plan is unlikely to succeed, you can delay engagement to their lair/ritual site.

Its also framed in the multiverse structure of the Throne of Heroes: Because alternative timelines is a thing, you can't jump the shark unless the timeline is SET and shit has hit the fan.

Nasu IS using D&D alignments. He just doesn't have to care, because the Characters are summoned with piles of predetermined actions, so where the chars on the chart doesn't have to reflect on the 1v6 duel shit they want to get trough.
Its also not set on the ground level that D&D often takes place for, its characters who are used to deal with armies and civilizations. Thats where they get their alignment from, such as making their civilization great and fair(I.e Vlad, Gilgamesh, Arthur)

If some kind of authority like an officer, the government, you boss, etc. told you to kill the hundred innocent people, then it is lawful as hell.

However, it automatically straight up evil.

Then I out everyone involved.

It's not lawful if they told you do to it.

It's lawful if you do it because they told you to do it.

Not really, you still intend the death of 100 innocents as a means to an end.

Just kill everyone except for one single other person to do as much good as humanly possible

>All these people autistically debating whether its LG or not when the obvious answer is simply to convert to Chaotic Good.

You go to the station and file a police report, after which they take you into custody. Before the trial you are released on bail and return to the track. Do you pull the lever?

>A philosophical argument that the dnd alignment grid simply wasn't built to deal with.
Except it has dealt with the problem, multiple times. OP's situation has no Good option. That's the entire point. Sacrificing 100 to save 1000 is Evil. Letting the 1000 die so your hand isn't forced to slay the 100 is Neutral at the very best and, even then, the gods of Good would look upon your sloth and disapprove.

Killing innocents is never, ever, not in a million fucking years Good, according to the DnD alignment system. OP's conundrum is the sort of situation designed to force your average Paladin to fall, either to teach him a lesson about how sometimes there's no good option and you have to make the best of it and seek repentance later, or just because he's a fucking dick.

*just because the GM is a fucking dick, natch

I now find in myself the desire to see an Ass Army in action.

Ridiculous. Killing 100 to save 1000 is 9 times as morally correct. It's just more distasteful.

If you don't do it and could have you are 100% personally responsible for the 1000 deaths.

The person who said trolley problem was correct.

Save the hobos, the doctors can regenerate.

"Those people died because you weren't good enough."

Yeah, that's bullshit. If you couldn't find a third way, it's because you couldn't think of one, or lacked the power to put your plan into action. Or maybe there just wasn't a way to save everyone. That's a thing that happens.

>implying math applies to morality
You fall.

He didn't say "no deaths", user. He said "no sacrifices".

Don't waste your time.
I hear the Ass Army is pretty shitty.

Actually, allow me to correct myself, because tripsman did imply, at the very least, no deaths. However, I believe what he actually meant was that a truly good character would at least TRY to find a way to save everybody, even if it was a futile effort.

Or maybe he was just trolling and got trips.

>all these delusional moralfags

>Is killing one hundred innocent people to save one thousand innocent people lawful and/or good?

No.

There are no innocent people.

That has nothing to do with my proposed scenario. If I knew absolutely nothing about those people, I would instinctively try to save the man who looked the most like me.

Way, waaaaaay beneath my dignity.
But if it were not beneath my dignity, I would be a crappy enough person that all of them would still die.

It's a difference that makes no difference.

Instinct has nothing at all to do with survival once consciousness becomes involved in the process. Think about that.

>Think about that
Why should he? It's flat-out wrong.

It's flat-out fact.
You can have consciousness or you can have evolution. They are mutually exclusive.