Justifying Murder: Good Intentions, Deadly Outcomes

The concept of a lawful good character and whether they can kill if they justify it is a complex and subjective topic, often explored in role-playing games and fiction. A lawful good character is generally expected to act in a way that combines a commitment to opposing evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. They value truth, honour, and the welfare of others, believing that order and law are necessary to assure goodness. While they may kill whenever necessary to promote the greater good or defend themselves or others, they avoid killing whenever possible and never harm the innocent. The subjectivity of good and evil, as well as the impact of a character's motivations and justifications, adds complexity to this discussion.

Killing to promote the greater good

A lawful good character is generally defined as someone who combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. They uphold principles of truth, honour, compassion, and welfare for others. They believe in the importance of order, law, and a strong, well-organized society to ensure the betterment of the majority.

When it comes to killing, a lawful good character will only take a life when necessary to promote the greater good or to defend themselves or others. They may strike down enemies of their nation during wartime and abide by legal executions as long as the punishment fits the crime. However, they avoid killing whenever possible and do not interfere with the lives of those who are merely suspected of a crime. They require tangible evidence of wrongdoing before taking action and never harm the innocent.

The concept of "justified" killing is where the complexity arises. Some argue that a lawful good character would not engage in killing, even if it could be justified, as good and evil are defined by the lines one is unwilling to cross. Crossing those lines, regardless of justification, could be considered evil.

Others argue that a lawful good character might engage in killing if it is the only way to serve the greater good. For example, in the case of sacrificing a few lives to ensure the survival of humanity, a lawful good character might reluctantly agree, viewing it as a necessary evil.

The subjectivity of good and evil also comes into play. What may be considered evil by some may be perceived as good by others, depending on their perspective and values.

Ultimately, the decision for a lawful good character to kill or not depends on the specific circumstances, their personal code of ethics, and the potential consequences of their actions. While they strive to bring the greatest benefit to most people and cause the least harm, they may find themselves in situations where killing seems like the only option to promote the greater good.

Killing in self-defence

A lawful good character is expected to act in a way that combines a commitment to opposing evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. They tell the truth, keep their word, help those in need, and speak out against injustice. They are also expected to respect the concepts of self-discipline and honour.

For a threat to be imminent, it must be certain to occur. This can be established through words or actions that put the intended victim in a reasonable and immediate fear of physical harm or serious bodily injury. For example, if someone is standing on a public sidewalk and sees an individual walking towards them in a threatening manner with a knife, they are not required to retreat and can stand their ground and use deadly force to prevent the person from causing them great bodily harm.

However, if a person gets into a fistfight with someone and pulls out a gun and shoots the other person before they can be stabbed, a jury may find that they were engaged in criminal activity, and therefore the use of deadly force was not justified.

It is important to note that the specific laws on self-defence vary from state to state in the United States. Some states have stand-your-ground laws, which allow a person to claim self-defence even if they did nothing to flee from the threat of violence. Other states require a person to first attempt to retreat from the threat of imminent harm before defending themselves.

Additionally, the response to the threat must match the threat level. A person can only use as much force as is required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract it. However, if the threat involves only minor force, and the person claiming self-defence uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, their claim of self-defence will likely fail.

In some states, if the person claiming self-defence provoked the attack, it may be considered imperfect self-defence, which may reduce the charges or punishment but will not excuse the killing entirely.

Overall, while a lawful good character may kill in self-defence, it is a complex issue that is subject to the specific laws and circumstances of the situation.

Killing in the defence of others

The concept of justifiable homicide in criminal law is a defence against culpable homicide. In most countries, a homicide is considered justified when there is sufficient evidence to disprove the alleged criminal act or wrongdoing. The key to this legal defence is that it was reasonable for the subject to believe that there was an imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to an innocent party by the deceased. Justifiable homicide applies to the blameless killing of a person, such as in self-defence or defence of others.

In many jurisdictions, provocation is a partial defence that converts what would have been murder into manslaughter. For example, in some jurisdictions, the castle doctrine allows the use of deadly force in self-defence against an intruder in one's home. Other jurisdictions have stand-your-ground laws that allow the use of deadly force in self-defence in a vehicle or in public, without a duty to retreat. In many states, given a case of self-defence, the defendant is expected to obey a duty to retreat if possible.

In the context of a lawful good character in a role-playing game, the concept of justifiable homicide can be applied, but it is a complex and subjective matter. Some players view a lawful good character as one with strong convictions, where the law is sacred and supersedes their own moral feelings. For example, a paladin who grew up learning that "destroying evil is good" and "monsters are evil" would mercilessly slaughter any monsters they encountered. However, others argue that a truly lawful good character would try to find a better solution or alternative to killing, even if it was for the defence of others. They might turn to euthanasia as an absolute last resort, but only if there were no other options.

Ultimately, the definition of "good" is subjective and can vary depending on cultural and personal perspectives. What may be considered justifiable homicide in one context may be seen as an evil act in another.

Killing in times of war

In the context of war, a lawful good character's actions are driven by their commitment to defending their nation and upholding their values. They will strike down the enemies of their nation, but only when necessary and with a heavy heart, as they understand the gravity of taking a life. They do not take pleasure in killing and will not engage in unnecessary brutality or cruelty. Their motivation is to protect their community, country, and allies, not personal gain or glory.

However, a lawful good character's sense of justice and honour may come into conflict with the realities of war. They will not kill innocent beings, and they will not use underhanded methods such as poison or torture. Their strong convictions and respect for authority may lead them to question immoral orders or strategies employed by their side, potentially causing internal conflict or difficult decisions.

The line between good and evil is not always clear, and a lawful good character may struggle with the moral complexities of war. They might find themselves grappling with questions of proportionality, collateral damage, and the protection of civilians. Their commitment to fairness and kindness may lead them to intervene to alleviate suffering on either side, even if it means aiding their enemies.

Ultimately, a lawful good character in times of war must navigate a challenging moral landscape. They strive to uphold their values and protect the innocent while recognizing that war inherently involves taking lives. It is a constant balancing act between their ideals and the harsh realities of conflict, and their decisions will shape their character arc and impact those around them.

Killing to prevent a greater evil

The concept of alignment in role-playing games is a spectrum, and a character's alignment can change. A Lawful Good character is generally expected to act in accordance with what others expect of them, not necessarily what they believe to be right. They are group and order-oriented, committed to opposing evil, and believe in the importance of truth, honour, and welfare. They strive to bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm.

A Lawful Good character can kill whenever necessary to promote the greater good or protect themselves or others. They may also kill enemies of their nation in times of war and will not interfere with a legal execution, provided the punishment fits the crime. They will not kill for personal gain and will not harm an innocent being.

Some players and writers argue that a Lawful Good character would not kill several people for the sake of the cosmic good, as justified acts are not always good acts. However, others argue that a Lawful Good character could be tricked into committing such acts by a Lawful Evil character, or that they would do so with a heavy heart if there were no other options.

The character of Lord Genome from the anime *Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann* is often used as an example in these discussions. Genome is a secondary antagonist who enslaves humanity and creates "beast men" to kill humans and keep their population below a certain number. However, it is later revealed that he is actually a good guy trying to save humanity from extinction at the hands of an antagonist known as the Anti-Spiral. Some argue that Genome is Lawful Evil, while others claim he is Lawful Good, as he is working towards the greater good, even if his methods are questionable.

Frequently asked questions