Honey, I Summoned a Demon

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Which is a deontological point of view, which is a valid ethical position, though I tend to come from a more virtue ethics point of view. It is character, not duty or obligations, whether external or internal, that determines the goodness of an individual and that leads to the actions take by an individual.

Sense of duty is an element of your character, and is neither a duty nor an obligation.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Which is a deontological point of view, which is a valid ethical position, though I tend to come from a more virtue ethics point of view. It is character, not duty or obligations, whether external or internal, that determines the goodness of an individual and that leads to the actions take by an individual. Either Duty or Sense of Duty can lead to horrific atrocities against the 'other', .

"Can" doesn't mean "will". And psychological disads are elements of character. I have to evaluate how a sense of duty manifests in practice to decide whether it is corrupt.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

I do not agree that Sense of Duty makes an individual a good person and acting to protect and/or help your focus does not make you a good person. There were SS officers in WWII who probably possessed Sense of Duty (Germans) and who committed crimes against humanity that they felt were protecting and/or helping the German people. Similar types of people have existed throughout history, people who committed atrocities against one group because they had a Sense of Duty towards another group.

I said that is was an example of being a good person, not that it automatically makes a character a good person, and you're ignoring the more important part of my post. By your logic, someone with a Sense of Duty to 'Every Living Being' would not be 'pure good' in casting a healing spell, because their Sense of Duty applies to anyone that they would cast it on, a premise that I find utterly ridiculous.

[Anthony]

Kant did claim that a person who did a good deed because it made them feel good wasn't truly good, but I'm pretty sure he was an outlier there, and in any case sense of duty is silent about the source of the sense of duty; "I have a genuine philosophical conviction that I should assist those in need" is a perfectly legitimate explanation for a sense of duty.

[Phil Masters]

This is running into the old problem that fantasy settings often assume the existence of objective “good” and “evil”, without being very clear what the definition is or where it comes from beyond the writer/GM’s vague aesthetic sense — though I believe that D&D has thrown up its hands and said “Good is what the certified Good Gods say is good, so shut up”. Of course, they may be Pratchettian gods who are basically amoral idiots that can’t afford to confuse their worshippers too much (but sometimes do so anyway).

I might add that, if there is an objective good, and following it guarantees that your healing spells will be demon-free, this gives you one (tricky and dangerous) test for whether you’re on the Right Side. One imagines Doctor Benevolus, well-meaning and sincere medical wizard to Lord Dubious’s black-clad Legion of Doom, fossicking up one of the many healing spells he has to cast after the PCs have been through and getting a demon. So while the Legion Rapid Response Team are shooing their visitor back to its plane of origin, Doc Benevolus is sitting in a corner having a crisis of conscience and going “But... But... But...”

[Celjabba]

One imagine there is a supreme court among gods that ruled : "I shall not attempt further to define pure good intent but I know it when I see it..."

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

This is running into the old problem that fantasy settings often assume the existence of objective “good” and “evil”, without being very clear what the definition is or where it comes from beyond the writer/GM’s vague aesthetic sense — though I believe that D&D has thrown up its hands and said “Good is what the certified Good Gods say is good, so shut up”. Of course, they may be Pratchettian gods who are basically amoral idiots that can’t afford to confuse their worshippers too much (but sometimes do so anyway).

I might add that, if there is an objective good, and following it guarantees that your healing spells will be demon-free, this gives you one (tricky and dangerous) test for whether you’re on the Right Side. One imagines Doctor Benevolus, well-meaning and sincere medical wizard to Lord Dubious’s black-clad Legion of Doom, fossicking up one of the many healing spells he has to cast after the PCs have been through and getting a demon. So while the Legion Rapid Response Team are shooing their visitor back to its plane of origin, Doc Benevolus is sitting in a corner having a crisis of conscience and going “But... But... But...”

Unless, of course the "demon" is actually an angel (or equivalent entity) … such things, after all, may be good but not necessarily nice, safe or fun to have around. Roll 666 and get audited...

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

I might add that, if there is an objective good, and following it guarantees that your healing spells will be demon-free, this gives you one (tricky and dangerous) test for whether you’re on the Right Side.

Not really, because a healer who heals one side but lets the other side suffer probably wouldn't qualify even if the other side are certified baddies.

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Not really, because a healer who heals one side but lets the other side suffer probably wouldn't qualify even if the other side are certified baddies.

I'd usually use this as well, but I could see settings where a healer would retain their "Truly Pure" status even if declining to aid someone from a specific faction/religion/etc.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Sense of duty is an element of your character, and is neither a duty nor an obligation.

Yeah, like many other disadvantages, "sense of duty" is a way of representing your PC's values. It seems perverse to claim that if you didn't take the points for it and just roleplayed your virtue, you'd be "more virtuous" than if you used the system's tools to accurately represent your character.