If you had to choose between good or evil what would you choose

[Zarrow]

I'm with Senshi, sometimes the greater good can only be served through bad deeds😉

The greater good can only be defined by you so that isn't fully correct. I choose good.*Sammi never answered my PM's, that's bad.T_T*

 

[Violetta]

Dammit! I gotta stop drinking and forgetting to do things!

 

[blackmagicjack1]

I'm with Senshi, sometimes the greater good can only be served through bad deeds😉

Please take me off the greater good list as the greater good scares me spitless. Sign me up for Enlightened Self Interest.

 

[Adalon1]

Within all of us is the desire to do the right thing.

All we have to do is let it sing.

 

[Bashiku]

Within me is a desire to conquer this world... should I listen to it 🙂

 

[Senshi1]

Greater good is fine and dandy, got to be cruel to be kind and all that, but personally, like I said, I tend to do whatever's right by me and those closest to me. It's selfishness, really (if I count the family as an extension of myself, which I usually do). If I can stay within 'good', I will, but if doing the best for my family means straying over into 'bad', then I don't hesitate to do that. I thought most people would work that way - am I right (genuine question)?

 

[Bashiku]

Evil will prevail! BUWAHAHAHA! only five more votes to be equal...

 

[MistressValerie1]

Greater good is fine and dandy, got to be cruel to be kind and all that, but personally, like I said, I tend to do whatever's right by me and those closest to me. It's selfishness, really (if I count the family as an extension of myself, which I usually do). If I can stay within 'good', I will, but if doing the best for my family means straying over into 'bad', then I don't hesitate to do that. I thought most people would work that way - am I right (genuine question)?

That would qualify you as a true neutral.

 

[TheChameleon]

Chaotic Neutral FTW!

Chaotic Neutral

Chaotic Neutral is called the "Anarchist" or "Free Spirit" alignment. A character of this alignment is an individualist who follows his or her own heart, shirks rules and traditions. They typically act out of self-interest, but do not enjoy seeing others suffer. Many adventurers are of this alignment.

An unusual subset of Chaotic Neutral is "strongly Chaotic Neutral", describing a character who behaves chaotically to the point of appearing insane. Characters of this type may regularly change their appearance and attitudes for the sake of change, and intentionally disrupt organizations for the sole reason of disrupting a Lawful construct. Characters of this type include the Xaositects from the Planescape setting, and Hennet from the third edition Player's Handbook. In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Chaotic Neutral was frequently assumed to refer to this subset.

Captain Jack Sparrow, Al Swearengen from the TV series Deadwood, and Snake Plissken from Escape from New York are verifiably Chaotic Neutral characters.[3] Slaadi represent pure Chaos.

 

[cartoonhero]

I believe that humans are naturally evil. It takes discipline and true courage to be genuinely kind.

And from what i have seen, out of 50 people standing in front of me, 48 of them are weak, selfish, greedy and evil who go around SMILING at you and convince the world and themselves they are decent human beings.

 

[blackmagicjack1]

Anybody who is interested in reading about what constitutes evil, especially in the context of mental illness, should take a look at M. Scott Peck's "People of the Lie." I have been reading it off and on for the last month and it certainly is thought provoking.

 

[Featherdemon]

Oooo goody, a deep one! 😀

Greater good is fine and dandy, got to be cruel to be kind and all that, but personally, like I said, I tend to do whatever's right by me and those closest to me. It's selfishness, really (if I count the family as an extension of myself, which I usually do). If I can stay within 'good', I will, but if doing the best for my family means straying over into 'bad', then I don't hesitate to do that. I thought most people would work that way - am I right (genuine question)?

Hmm. An interesting point there bud. 🙂 To define one's action as good or bad purely on whether or not it benefits you and your own can lead to all manner of ethical complications. I think I agree with you - I would do a lot in the sake of my family but I have my limits.

On the one hand you have the argument that good and bad are not set in stone, but rather abstract terms given meaning only in their consequence or their intention; i.e hurting people is bad, but doing so to help or save someone you love makes it is okay. On the other hand there is the argument that right and wrong are set down in dogma (religious, philosophical etc) and therefore are clearly defined for all to see. The latter, in my opinion tends to be directed towards living a certain way or reinforcing a certain belief rather than any single moral code.

I do believe that I am good person, but like everyone else I have the potential to do terrible things. When I have nightmares of someone hurting those I love, I have cold sweats imagining bloody revenge I would take just to make it right. But thinking and doing are very different things. Revenge is not a justifcation for evil deeds. End of story. No matter how much we would like to personally argue it, there is no way around it. Revenge is not justice and it has a very bitter after taste.

But here is the kicker.

There is no universal right or wrong, good or evil. There is only what you will and will not tolerate as a person. Obviously there are societal limits and religious ones to. Yet as living breathing creatures, there is nothing to stop us carrying out whatever bloody deed we can think of. Right and wrong are personal interpretations of very abstract terms. This, of course, makes it ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT that we actively CHOOSE TO DO GOOD THINGS!! 😀

I would choose the side of light because I believe it is important to be kind, gentle and kingly, if you'll pardon the Tolkienism. We should all make an active decision to NOT let those we love suffer due to our actions or inaction. At the end of the day all we have is what we have - our friends and family. And I'm buggered if I will tarnish them or their love by using them as a reason for me doing something terrible.

Feathers wanna be a nice guy! 😀😀😀

 

[limbo123]

good
evil
only perspectives of what you think are right and wrong
neutral is the same to...
but i feel neutral at the moment
heh

 

[Excess]

Neutral, definitely. Although it is terribly fun to be evil, being neutral means I can be whatever I want to be at any given time, thus adding to the chaotic factor of my personality. 😀

 

[Senshi1]

Hmm. An interesting point there bud. 🙂 To define one's action as good or bad purely on whether or not it benefits you and your own can lead to all manner of ethical complications. I think I agree with you - I would do a lot in the sake of my family but I have my limits.

On the one hand you have the argument that good and bad are not set in stone, but rather abstract terms given meaning only in their consequence or their intention; i.e hurting people is bad, but doing so to help or save someone you love makes it is okay. On the other hand there is the argument that right and wrong are set down in dogma (religious, philosophical etc) and therefore are clearly defined for all to see. The latter, in my opinion tends to be directed towards living a certain way or reinforcing a certain belief rather than any single moral code.

I do believe that I am good person, but like everyone else I have the potential to do terrible things. When I have nightmares of someone hurting those I love, I have cold sweats imagining bloody revenge I would take just to make it right. But thinking and doing are very different things. Revenge is not a justifcation for evil deeds. End of story. No matter how much we would like to personally argue it, there is no way around it. Revenge is not justice and it has a very bitter after taste.

But here is the kicker.

There is no universal right or wrong, good or evil. There is only what you will and will not tolerate as a person. Obviously there are societal limits and religious ones to. Yet as living breathing creatures, there is nothing to stop us carrying out whatever bloody deed we can think of. Right and wrong are personal interpretations of very abstract terms. This, of course, makes it ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT that we actively CHOOSE TO DO GOOD THINGS!! 😀

I would choose the side of light because I believe it is important to be kind, gentle and kingly, if you'll pardon the Tolkienism. We should all make an active decision to NOT let those we love suffer due to our actions or inaction. At the end of the day all we have is what we have - our friends and family. And I'm buggered if I will tarnish them or their love by using them as a reason for me doing something terrible.

Feathers wanna be a nice guy! 😀😀😀

That's a good in-depth response. 😛 And also brings up some good points.

Just to clarify, I also disagree with the idea of revenge. I know sometimes, well usually, I'll be TEMPTED to take revenge, and will imagine it vividly, but in actual fact, to act on it is pointless and only causes more trouble than the worth of it (for example, adding fuel to feuds, or getting yourself arrested).

As for limits, I also have limits. I wouldn't murder someone to get a job, or anything mad like that. I wouldn't even beat someone around to get a job. Ever case is an individual, and sometimes the means justify the cause, and sometimes they don't.

I think I mentioned the problem of the man stealing medicene for his sick wife, earlier. In case some people aren't familiar with it, here it is:

A man's wife is terminally ill. There is a medicene that can save her life, but it costs far too much for the man to afford, no matter how much he borrows or sells. Therefore, should the man simply sit back and accept that the law's the law, or should he break into the shop and steal it in an attempt to save his wife's life?

Now personally I feel pretty strongly about this. There's a whole bunch of different answers, some people firmly believe that the law's the law and you shouldn't steal no matter what, that the shopkeeper needs to make a living, etc etc. But personally, I feel that it would be inexcusable to let your own wife die because the medicene is overpriced. Does that mean that richer people have more right to live? You could even pay the shopkeeper back once you get out of prison (assuming you get sent down for it), or work for him to reimburse him. But to stand back willingly and let your wife die, when there's a chance to could save her, is, to me, completely inexcusable.

 

[Bashiku]

Well here are my definitions just to heat things up a little.
Good: A person who abides by the rules of society and often does things that are not in his interest to help others.
Neutral: People who don't meddle into anything, keeping themselves at bay and watching, analyzing before they choose what side will they come forth.
Evil: A person who will do anything to achieve his goal. Even as evil person, he can, but doesn't have to abide to some rules, but he uses them most to do things that will speed him up.

 

[Featherdemon]

That's a good in-depth response. 😛 And also brings up some good points.

Thanks bud! I do like to give a detailed answer. 😀

I think I mentioned the problem of the man stealing medicene for his sick wife, earlier. In case some people aren't familiar with it, here it is:

A man's wife is terminally ill. There is a medicene that can save her life, but it costs far too much for the man to afford, no matter how much he borrows or sells. Therefore, should the man simply sit back and accept that the law's the law, or should he break into the shop and steal it in an attempt to save his wife's life?

Now personally I feel pretty strongly about this. There's a whole bunch of different answers, some people firmly believe that the law's the law and you shouldn't steal no matter what, that the shopkeeper needs to make a living, etc etc. But personally, I feel that it would be inexcusable to let your own wife die because the medicene is overpriced. Does that mean that richer people have more right to live? You could even pay the shopkeeper back once you get out of prison (assuming you get sent down for it), or work for him to reimburse him. But to stand back willingly and let your wife die, when there's a chance to could save her, is, to me, completely inexcusable.

I totally agree with you on this point bud! Stealing drugs is by far the lesser of two evils when it comes to someone's life. Rich or poor, everyone has a right to live. 😀

 

[meangry1]

ambivalence

 

[Duke Diablo]

That's a good in-depth response. 😛 And also brings up some good points.


I think I mentioned the problem of the man stealing medicene for his sick wife, earlier. In case some people aren't familiar with it, here it is:

A man's wife is terminally ill. There is a medicene that can save her life, but it costs far too much for the man to afford, no matter how much he borrows or sells. Therefore, should the man simply sit back and accept that the law's the law, or should he break into the shop and steal it in an attempt to save his wife's life?

In dungeons and dragons terminology, that would be described as chaotic good behavior. You see, the base point of the whole good and evil concept is that if you're doing something good, it doesn't always fit with the law. Men make laws, men enforce the laws, so not all laws are good. Cultures with legalized slavery are an example of such societies. It's ok by the laws, but it's still evil.
For example, robin hood is an example of such character: He breaks the rules (the laws) to help people. Therefore, he is chaotic. But, he is also good.
The question mentioned above is more of a lawful vs. chaotic point of view, not an evil vs. good.

 

[MistressValerie1]

By that definition I would be chaotic good, because I believe that if obeying the law will cause great harm, it is acceptable, even obligatory, to disobey it.

 

[Duke Diablo]

By that definition I would be chaotic good, because I believe that if obeying the law will cause great harm, it is acceptable, even obligatory, to disobey it.

Well, it depends... chaotic good character does what he believes is right, feels obligated to no one. Maybe you'd be more of a neutral good person, then. You try to do good, you try to follow the law as long as there is sense in it. However, if you feel that obeying a law would go against ethics and morality, you don't obey it. It's a thin line, I know, and it's hard to explain, but let's just say it's a less radical version of chaotic, who doesn't really care about laws at all, or even better, say it's a mixture of lawful and chaotic personality. I doubt you'd go hiding into the woods as a guerilla against authority🙂

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

this is a very good topic. the rock and roll tickle king is very impressed indeed brother. it is a tough question. the songbird billy joel always claimed that he rather laugh with sinners than die with saints. in that regard the hollywood brother agrees but yet the hollywood brother is a nice guy. the hollywood brother like to help animals and people. now with this being said the hollywood brother can be transform his beat up fat out of shape body into a evil machine whose motto is f me...f you brother. The hollywood brother can be a real horse's backside if provoked but does not like to get to that point.

 

[Featherdemon]

Another interesting point for your humble consideration...

...what defines an act or a person as good or right?

If one is to believe in the Chaotic good and therefore, believe that a person does something they believe to be for the good of a race but may not be considered good by the law, what if the Chaotic good believes that a certain small group is deserving of pain or death? Who then will call counsel and condemn the deed?

 

[MistressValerie1]

Well, it depends... chaotic good character does what he believes is right, feels obligated to no one. Maybe you'd be more of a neutral good person, then. You try to do good, you try to follow the law as long as there is sense in it. However, if you feel that obeying a law would go against ethics and morality, you don't obey it. It's a thin line, I know, and it's hard to explain, but let's just say it's a less radical version of chaotic, who doesn't really care about laws at all, or even better, say it's a mixture of lawful and chaotic personality. I doubt you'd go hiding into the woods as a guerilla against authority🙂

Personally, I think of myself as neutral good, as I am not a chaotic person by nature, but also not a slave to human-made laws 😉

Another interesting point for your humble consideration...

...what defines an act or a person as good or right?

If one is to believe in the Chaotic good and therefore, believe that a person does something they believe to be for the good of a race but may not be considered good by the law, what if the Chaotic good believes that a certain small group is deserving of pain or death? Who then will call counsel and condemn the deed?

I think that a commonsense approach would be needed -- that is, to evaluate whether the chaotic good's actions are reasonable in light of all the circumstances. Perhaps lawful good, due to his nature, would be in the best position to act as moral arbiter.

 

[Duke Diablo]

Personally, I think of myself as neutral good, as I am not a chaotic person by nature, but also not a slave to human-made laws 😉

That is exactly what I have thought🙂

Another interesting point for your humble consideration...

...what defines an act or a person as good or right?

If one is to believe in the Chaotic good and therefore, believe that a person does something they believe to be for the good of a race but may not be considered good by the law, what if the Chaotic good believes that a certain small group is deserving of pain or death? Who then will call counsel and condemn the deed?

It is the common sense that guides the chaotic good character. I do not see why should one not believe in chaotic good character in the first place. After all, a person doesn't have to be lawful to be good. Not believing in a chaotic good character is the same as not believing in lawful evil character. If chaotic good believes that a certain someone or a group deserves death, he or she has a reason do think that way. Chaotic good character is a good character, despite his chaotic nature. That chaotic nature doesn't have to mean that he's a wacko or something. It just means that he looks up to himself to discern right from wrong, and he does that independently of others. Where others look up to laws to tell them right from wrong (meaning, they take what others wrote for granted), he judges the law by his conscience. Lawful good characters are much more closed-minded and, as such, are more prone to be manipulated by evil forces.
Take this as an example:
Two demon hunters capture a shapeshifter (I'm taking the fantasy example due to the easiest application and illustration... examples of chaotic good characters in everyday life are scarce at best these days), who then takes a form of damsel in distress. Now, let's take two options: one is that a paladin (a prime example of lawful good character) approaches them, and the other one is that a ranger (let's say he's chaotic good). Also, let's say both of them are fooled by the shapeshifter's appearance, and do indeed believe it's a damsel in distress.
There is a higher chance that the paladin, slayer of evil, once he sees the situation, rushes blindly and kills the demon hunters, than it is for the ranger to do so. Being that he has no moral compass other than his conscience, the ranger would observe the situation, make a judgment of it, and act accordingly, probably first trying out the intimidation tactics on the hunters instead of using lethal force.
Also, once they realize they made a mistake, both would probably try to correct it. So, all that makes them both good. It's not that a chaotic good can't be wrong in his assessment, we're all humans, but it's his will to do good that counts.