"Good Isn't Stupid Or Weak Or Nice."

Hi all,

So with all the challenges raised by the recent IG events (Xualla, legal bad-guys, etc.), I wanted to share an essay I just found that I think is excellent. It's written by a Catholic theologian who happens to play Dungeons and Dragons, examining how he thinks a paladin and 'good' characters would act in a world with concrete examples of good and evil. It's a fun read, and I thought you all would like it.

harbingergames.blogspot.com/2014/06/good...or-weak-or-nice.html

Interesting read.

I moved it for you.

I want to echo. This is an incredible read.

Joe: thanks for moving it. I wasn't certain which forum I could put it under.

Lucien is a good guy.

He'll sacrifice himself for the innocent; He'll kick you right in the balls if it will win the fight.

I approve of this essay. I. Approve. A lot.

True story: Aldric is this essay.

Paladins were always my favorite D&D class. Valosian Cleric is the closest I could get to it.

Good read. Nothing new for me though. I've always thought this way. We have the saying good isnt stupid at our table. We also have lawful good gods that nudge PCs whenthey are confused and missing something important. Those same gods have a senseof humor. Why shouldnt they?

In the case of KR why wouldn't the Gods trapped on the world come visit Travance? I think it woud be an aweso e opportunity and they could come from an unusual way or source. The small sheets finding or talking to them...imagine a low level person meeting Valos who rescues them from an evil thing then asks for help to find X. Come with me little one...

Coolness is goodness...

His medieval image of the angel is not medieval though... Its a modern card for an archangel,ade imthink in the 1930s

This is why I was so glad when D&D3.5 put out the Book of Exalted Deeds. After the Book of Vile Darkness, yes, people were all "this is awesome and badass", but then Exalted Deeds came in and showed stuff that was even MORE badass. Not just the character options (which admittedly a lot of it was pretty broken ie. Vow of Poverty), but the good-aligned planar exemplars were mostly more powerful than their evil counterparts AND their background descriptions presented ideals for good PCs to use as examples and live up to.

Thank-you for posting this!

I loved it! It really gets the point across that you don't have to be a nice person in order to be a good person.

Its interesting also to note Angels were not described as humanoid by and large. They were often unnatural, supernatural beings that were described with closest real world comparisons, multiple wings, hundreds of eyes ect. Sometimes head of a Lion, or Eagle, ect. very reminiscent of the forms of Egyptian supernatural beings, which in some cases were contemporary.

That being said, the moral I take from the article doesn't mean that Good doesn't have to be nice. I think someone trying to be Good should always try to treat others fairly and with respect. However, a Good character can be every bit as complex and flawed as an Evil character. Being 'Evil' I find is a crutch sometimes, as being vaguely evil is easy as long as you don't commit to it fully. Evil characters committed to being evil, should be going out of their way to create havoc, strife and are going to find it very hard for their 'evil' to go unnoticed. Similarly being Good is hard as to commit to it requires alot of effort in holding to a standard of behavior that forces you to engage in being Good, just as a committed Evil character does. Anyone not committed to their morality is just playing easy mode. These are the guys in your D&D campaign that ask how many plusses does the weapon have, or stack implausible equipment bonuses to gain a mathematical advantage in the system. Power gamers are a plague everywhere.

Lets not forget that good doesn't also always mean "refined" or "civilized". I, for example, play a very rough around the edges PC. He would be classified as a "good" PC, despite being one of the unwashed masses, but is lacking in some of the easygoing camaraderie that most would take for granted- not surprising for a professional warrior. loyal as a guard dog, ferocious in battle, but would not know what fork to use in a formal setting.

This also goes in real life as well. I know many "rough" individuals from my days on active duty (sorry, the title "Marine" is not one you put down-ever), who may offend one's sensibilities from time to time, but would always have your back, no matter what-be it a 2 AM call to pick up squad mates at the bar, or fighting like hell to get you to a Corpsman. To me, that is what defines good. so, when playing, do not forget this- the roughest individuals sometimes are the ones who may exemplify the concept of good the best.

It's not so much that good is considered wussy or not bad-ass enough, I think. It's also that a lot of what people can do and call "good" is not - at least not from the perspective of a player.

Like killing all orcs, for example. They're all evil, so killing them must be good. I think it's probably more complicated than that.

Being strong can be a way to be tempted to evil actions, because you may be strong enough to hide mistakes. Being "nice" is not the same as holding no standards; similarly being tolerant.

Just as a note, we've had the embodiments of the light gods show up recently. Grim almost arrested Gaia, it was great.