@the_spyder: Re-read again what I said about D&D's gods. They are not infallible beings, and are in turn subject to oversight; that sets them apart from our concept of "God". There are several examples of D&D gods behaving in ways that we would not see as completely justifiable within their alignment. As for the apparent contradiction in my argument, I did say that these definitions may only be comprehensible to gods - they are absolute, because their definition lies outside of mortal arguments. That in turn leaves things open for gods to interpret things as they will; you as a mortal cannot comprehend divine will. You say "they wouldn't do something evil", and you are right; but for a different reason than you think. They cannot do something evil, because (in D&D) the definition of evil lies with the divine; if a good-alignment god does something, it can't be evil by definition simply *because* they are a good god. If it seems evil to you, then that is because you are mortal, and cannot comprehend it fully.
I'm not trying to construct real-world analogies here, I'm just saying that in order for the system of D&D to be self-contained and logically sound, that is how things work. Though admittedly, it is similar how many real-world religions construct their arguments and defend their concepts. The difference is that in D&D there is no doubt whatsoever as to the existence of gods and an afterlife; this in turn has severe ramifications, as I outline before.
Either way, this argument is becoming increasingly circular, and I'd suggest we leave it at that for now. D&D is, after all, not something created by philosophers; there is a certain degree of artistic freedom involved that can let moral, philosophical, and theological incongruities slide.
So wait. You are saying that if some lawful good God declares that Blood sacrificing 13 week old babies of all races is what must be done, that is the new 'Good'?
I am still looking for, through all of this, the definitive argument that proves that any Lawful Good attitude necessitates or can in any way be interpreted as Genocide (being defined as the indiscriminate slaughter of all beings of a given group regardless of their actions). I don't see it.
I'm not saying they would do it, I'm saying that since "good" and "evil" are absolutely defined through divine will in D&D (which by definition is incomprehensible to mortals), actions by "good" gods are necessarily good, even if they may seem different to mortals. This is not a new argument, it's part of e.g. Christian beliefs as well. The difference is that while we have the luxury of questioning the very premise the argument is based on (the existence of a god), that is not the case in the D&D setting.
You say any action performed by a good God is by definition, 'Good'. I say that no 'Good God' would perform an evil act. Therefore after a fashion, we agree.
I do not subscribe to Good and Evil being defined by the Gods. I believe the intent is that Good and Evil are embodied by the Gods. They are the essence of these concepts. It's a small difference and doesn't materially change the argument.
I still therefore stand on the fact that Genocide (by any definition you care to name) is generally considered an Evil act. Therefore any Paladin (or indeed any Lawful Good being) would never countenance it's implementation in either thought or deed at the risk of no longer being Lawful good.
I'm not saying they would do it, I'm saying that since "good" and "evil" are absolutely defined through divine will in D&D (which by definition is incomprehensible to mortals), actions by "good" gods are necessarily good, even if they may seem different to mortals. This is not a new argument, it's part of e.g. Christian beliefs as well. The difference is that while we have the luxury of questioning the very premise the argument is based on (the existence of a god), that is not the case in the D&D setting.
No. Good and Evil transcend even deities. Alignment is a being's "team" in the ebb and flow of the entire cosmos. Gods do not determine what is Good by being inherently and infallibly Good and then willing it be so, gods espouse Good ideas through Good actions and thus become Good-aligned.
@Schneidend: as I said earlier, the problem of who defines it simply escalated. It's assumed to be an abstract reality of the world, as I understand it, I'm not sure who defines the terms per se. Either way, gods and similar beings supposedly have a deeper understanding of these things; or, at least, one that transcends mortal comprehension.
If Gods define "Good and Evil", no "Good God" would perform an evil act as that would be out of character with their ethos. Therefore no Good God would perform Genocide.
If Good and Evil are above the gods, no 'Good God' would perform an evil act because they were forbidden based on Good and Evil being above them. Therefore no Good God would perform Genocide.
We can debate all day which came first, the chicken or the egg. Either way you slice it, no good God would perform Genocide.
@the_spyder: your reasoning starts right, the drifts.
- Gods (or overgods, or whatever is above them... The Lady of Pain, I don't know) define "good" and "evil"
- A "good" God does not perform non-good tasks (and consequently, any task they perform is by definition "good")
Those we agree on. Then you say "no Good God would perform Genocide", and that's where we disagree. You assume genocide to be an inherently evil act; but who says that is the case? That's my whole argument; *you* may think it's "evil", but it's not you who makes the rules. If a "good" god were to condone/order/perform genocide, it would by definition be a "good" act (at least in that instance, not on principle). You assume your own, mortal definition of "good" and "evil" and apply it to the actions of the divine; in fact, it is the other way round.
No. we don't agree. You say that the gods define 'Good' and 'Evil'. I say that they are defined BY Good and Evil.
As for "No Good God would perform Genocide", there is absolutely a disconnect. And I think I finally understand it. You assume that Gods are Gods and all powerful (or at least more powerful than Good or evil). Therefore they can take whatever action they want and then CALL that action good or evil. I disagree completely.
In my view either
(a) The good gods act in a certain way that is consistent with good and thus are themselves good and define Good that way. In that scenario, they aren't compelled to act in any given way, but their nature is such that any action they would ever choose to take is inherently going to be a good one. They aren't going to kick babies as for instance, EVER. not because they are compelled to do Good, but because any action they chose to take would universally be the good choice.
or
(b) The powers of Good and Evil are above the gods and they are consigned to act in either a good or evil manner. In this scenario, they are compelled BY Good or Evil to only act in a given way.
In neither scenario would someone (to pick an action at random) "Kick babies" and then "Make" that a good act. In that case, if we suddenly name Bhaal as "Good" Then Murder becomes the new Black.
Red doesn't suddenly become Blue simply because the God of Red changes his pants.
But more than that, the fact that there are multiple Gods of Good or Evil more or less proves that Good and Evil supersede God's powers. Otherwise, in your way of thinking No person ever in Faerun or anywhere else can ever be good or evil, because if two 'Good' gods disagree on what is good, then every suddenly becomes evil.
As for Genocide being 'Evil', as I said before, if there is free will, then any sentient being with free will can be either good or evil. If that is the case, "Kill them ALL" invariably means that some 'Good' people will be killed. EVEN IF the Gods could foresee a time wherein the mere existence of a being from a given race would put the entire cosmos at risk, I don't believe that any Good god would merely say "Kill them all indiscriminately". They would certainly not condone that kind of cavalier attitude from any of their minions (least of all their Paladins).
You seem to be taking the definition of "good" and "evil" for granted. Who tells us which is which? In the real world, they are highly complex constructs amalgamated from social, philosophical, and historic contexts. In D&D, they are a force of nature. The entire system of gods and overgods and balance revolves around them; they are not made by mortals. Where *do* they come from, then? And *how* are they communicated to mortals? I do not know the former, but for the latter I argue: through gods. As such, mortals can only understand "good" and "evil" through the expressions of the respective gods. There being more than one for each alignment does not contradict this, it merely adds facets. But it also means (as I pointed out) that gods define the terms through their actions. Given that they are gods, those actions may seemingly contradict our understanding of "good" and "evil", even though they don't really do. In your example, *you*, as a mortal, may think genocide is bad; but the god who ordered it knows it's a good act, for whatever reason. Maybe it'll have ramifications 1.000 years from now, I don't know. It's not hard to construct a theoretical scenario that would support it, especially since being "good" includes making hard choices and sacrifices. Note that I'm not saying whether the act is "good" or "evil"; I'm saying that, in the context of D&D, it is not for mortals to make that distinction. They can only turn to their gods. They set the example.
Of course, things become more complicated when the gods aren't the one making the decisions directly. Free will, as you rightly point out, does play a pivotal role. However, the gods of D&D are not immaterial and removed from this reality the way gods are described in the real world; they do take an active hand in things, and they do have commandments, laws, oaths to uphold, etc. That's where the Paladins come in. They are some of the closest interpreters of divine will among mortals, but they are not merely left to their own devices in making decisions. They have a rigorous set of rules to follow. That's the difference to real-life priests, they don't have to assume, they are *commanded*. And these commands are the problems, because they can try and trouble mortals for the above-mentioned reasons: you must trust your god, even if the demands seem out of character to your mortal perception. I am not implying they *are* out of character, just that they may *appear* so, because of a lack of understanding of the divine.
Yeah, ok. Now you are merely spinning for the sake of spinning.
The Gods of The Forgotten Realms are fictitious constructs based on the collective minds of the folks who write the book series and any DM who runs a game in The Forgotten Realms. They don't actually exist. They aren't "Unknowable". They are constructs, pure and simple.
Even if we were debating real philosophy, you are (how do they say it?) Pontificating on Air. And what is worse, your logic falls down on itself more times than it stands up, yet you continue to shift with the wind to try a different tac. Good luck in that.
Paladins being Paladins and the beacon of light and right, would not participate in prejudice or wanton destruction of any sentient being if there were another option open to them. Pure and simple.
I'm not sure you understand what I'm getting at. You are going into this debate with exactly the preconceived notions I am trying to demonstrate do not apply to the D&D world. I'm not talking about the world in relation to ours in terms of its inception, I'm merely pointing out that the system as-is requires divergence from established paradigms of the "real world". It's obviously fictional, but that doesn't mean it has no self-contained logic behind it - that logic simply creates a system of morality that, although based on ours, has important differences and certain ramifications that are a consequence of them.
I understand perfectly well what you are getting at. It's called Spin.
You want to say that anything can mean anything or nothing based on your own whim and that if you want black to be white, that 'Because they are The Gods' that it is so. Only that isn't the case.
The Alignment system was made with a simplified binary leaning because it is a game. Law and Chaos. Good and Evil. One and Zero. The logical consistency you are asking for is quite simple. Good = Good and Evil = Evil. they are simplified such that people playing the game don't have to stretch themselves too much just to have fun. The gods are the same. Trying to spin some existential debate on the nature of what an orange is, isn't going to change that. In this case there actually is a spoon and it isn't bending. Sorry.
@the_spyder: I don't doubt that that was the exact motivation behind it all. But people are obviously debating the system, and that's a good thing. Just because it's fictional, doesn't mean it's not real within its context. And the answer to "existential debates", as you put it, helps breathe even more life into it. Realizing that things only *appear* to be binary and simple makes the world infinitely more complex, because they necessitate interpretation.
@Schneidend: Where does the system come from, then? I'm not too firm on that. Who defines "good" and "evil" in D&D? How do the gods know? Is that just an assumed axiomatic premise, as @the_spyder suggests, or has there been some explanation offered? Overgods? "Nature"? "The Balance"?
Lord Ao forces the gods to follow their alignment and their powers porfolio. So no, Good god don't define what good means. Good and Evil are treated like primal forces like Light and Dark, Heat and Cold. The gods are meant to maintain a balance.
Where does the system come from, then? I'm not too firm on that. Who defines "good" and "evil" in D&D? How do the gods know? Is that just an assumed axiomatic premise, as @the_spyder suggests, or has there been some explanation offered? Overgods? "Nature"? "The Balance"?
It's just something that exists; no being put it into place. It's the ebb and flow of the cosmos. Your alignment is the metaphysical team you play on. Thriving on disorder and destruction makes you Chaotic Evil, for instance. No omnipotent intelligence assigns this value to you.
I get that you choose out of your own volition, but how do you know what constitutes "good" or "evil"? You say "Thriving on disorder and destruction makes you Chaotic Evil", but who says so? How do people know that this is the case, or what exactly constitutes "disorder and destruction"? Is that just implicitly assumed, or is there some deeper definition at play?
The D&D alignment system is a total mess. It is based on a simplistic notion of Good v Evil taken from Tolkien (but grounded in Christian thought). The mix has then been muddied by a notion of Law v Chaos taken from Moorcock.
The notion of a 'good' God only works in a monotheistic system, where the God (via his followers) can define right and wrong. If you want to have a polytheistic system like D&D it is far better to leave the value judgments out and just create pantheons of gods and goddesses with competing interests and desires.
I agree. If good is a universal concept, why are there 20 different lawful good deities? No, the only reasonable idea is that lawful good isn't an absolute thing.
I get that you choose out of your own volition, but how do you know what constitutes "good" or "evil"? You say "Thriving on disorder and destruction makes you Chaotic Evil", but who says so? How do people know that this is the case, or what exactly constitutes "disorder and destruction"? Is that just implicitly assumed, or is there some deeper definition at play?
I think you mix up right and wrong and good and evil.
Everybody wants to do right, but what is right depends on the alignment and faith. Good characters are believing that everybody has a right to achieve "happiness" and are willing to help others to find it. Neutral characters also believe that everybody has this right, but that everybody is responsible to achieve this themselves. Evil character believe that they have the right to achieve their goals and that nobody has a right to stand in their way.
The dogma of a god places him/her/it into their place into the alignment spectrum. E.g. Oghma is neutral because he only cares about knowledge disregarding if the knowledge is used to harm or help others.
Selune is good, because she tries to help others.
Umberlee is evil because she only cares about being venerated.
I get that you choose out of your own volition, but how do you know what constitutes "good" or "evil"? You say "Thriving on disorder and destruction makes you Chaotic Evil", but who says so? How do people know that this is the case, or what exactly constitutes "disorder and destruction"? Is that just implicitly assumed, or is there some deeper definition at play?
The universe says so. There is no arbiter assigning the teams. You're on a team because, intentionally or not, your actions are plays for that team. People, as in the characters in the game world, don't know necessarily that this is the case. The exact term "Chaotic Evil" is not in a character's vocabulary, but it is pretty obvious what suffering, destruction, avarice, deceitfulness, etc. are (Evil), in the same way that people can recognize benevolence (Good), adherence to structure (Law), and willful defiance and aversion to structure (Chaos) are.
I agree. If good is a universal concept, why are there 20 different lawful good deities? No, the only reasonable idea is that lawful good isn't an absolute thing.
Good can still be a universal constant with multiple Gods. In fact it HAS to be.
Each God has their own sphere of influence, and where they overlap, a different way of going about achieving that good. Saving lives might be seen as "Good". One god saves lives by preaching 'Turn the other cheek' another preaches 'help the needy' and yet another preaches 'find better ways to disagree'. All address more or less the same issue but are very different paths.
@the_spyder: I think you're right in how the system is differentiated, but I don't quite understand why it "HAS to be" that way for Good "as a universal constant with multiple Gods". I don't doubt that "Good" is an absolute reality in D&D, I just don't see how this is a necessary consequence of multiple gods (and vice versa?). Why couldn't it work with a single God instead, for example?
I agree. If good is a universal concept, why are there 20 different lawful good deities? No, the only reasonable idea is that lawful good isn't an absolute thing.
Good can still be a universal constant with multiple Gods. In fact it HAS to be.
Each God has their own sphere of influence, and where they overlap, a different way of going about achieving that good. Saving lives might be seen as "Good". One god saves lives by preaching 'Turn the other cheek' another preaches 'help the needy' and yet another preaches 'find better ways to disagree'. All address more or less the same issue but are very different paths.
Considering that Tyr practically committed suicide after killing Helm I think it is pretty obvious that the gods of the forgotten realms are not infallible.
And the fact that the alignment of the current Mystra jumps all over the place depending how magic is viewed in the current edition ( from chaotic-neutral to lawful-neutral to neutral-good ) shows that goods are hardly constant.
@the_spyder: I think you're right in how the system is differentiated, but I don't quite understand why it "HAS to be" that way for Good "as a universal constant with multiple Gods". I don't doubt that "Good" is an absolute reality in D&D, I just don't see how this is a necessary consequence of multiple gods (and vice versa?). Why couldn't it work with a single God instead, for example?
Maybe "has" was inappropriate. I was merely saying that if one person acts a certain way, they may have come up with that behavior themselves. If multiple people act in a similar manner independent of each other it is more reasonable to assume that some outside force has influenced them than that they each decided to act that way on their own without influence.
Considering that Tyr practically committed suicide after killing Helm I think it is pretty obvious that the gods of the forgotten realms are not infallible.
And the fact that the alignment of the current Mystra jumps all over the place depending how magic is viewed in the current edition ( from chaotic-neutral to lawful-neutral to neutral-good ) shows that goods are hardly constant.
I never said the gods were infallable (other than to attempt to represent another poster's point of view). I see the Forgotten realms Gods as more like the ancient Greek Gods who were constantly making mistakes.
Someone's view of someone/something else can be erratic without the subject itself being erratic. Other than that, I put it down to what Wizards thought would sell best. Doesn't mean that the constants of Good and Evil are not in fact constant.
I find funny these kind of debates, so let me left here a question to be answered by anyone who want:
You know that a man, a good man, with family and friends, will in the future kill a hundred other good persons. You're presented with this knowledge and a chance to kill this man before all that happens. What would you do? What would be the good thing to do? What would be the lawful good thing to do?
Just remember that with the knowledge and by inactivity, you're so guilty of the act as it's perpetrator.
Comments
As for the apparent contradiction in my argument, I did say that these definitions may only be comprehensible to gods - they are absolute, because their definition lies outside of mortal arguments. That in turn leaves things open for gods to interpret things as they will; you as a mortal cannot comprehend divine will. You say "they wouldn't do something evil", and you are right; but for a different reason than you think. They cannot do something evil, because (in D&D) the definition of evil lies with the divine; if a good-alignment god does something, it can't be evil by definition simply *because* they are a good god. If it seems evil to you, then that is because you are mortal, and cannot comprehend it fully.
I'm not trying to construct real-world analogies here, I'm just saying that in order for the system of D&D to be self-contained and logically sound, that is how things work. Though admittedly, it is similar how many real-world religions construct their arguments and defend their concepts. The difference is that in D&D there is no doubt whatsoever as to the existence of gods and an afterlife; this in turn has severe ramifications, as I outline before.
Either way, this argument is becoming increasingly circular, and I'd suggest we leave it at that for now. D&D is, after all, not something created by philosophers; there is a certain degree of artistic freedom involved that can let moral, philosophical, and theological incongruities slide.
I am still looking for, through all of this, the definitive argument that proves that any Lawful Good attitude necessitates or can in any way be interpreted as Genocide (being defined as the indiscriminate slaughter of all beings of a given group regardless of their actions). I don't see it.
I do not subscribe to Good and Evil being defined by the Gods. I believe the intent is that Good and Evil are embodied by the Gods. They are the essence of these concepts. It's a small difference and doesn't materially change the argument.
I still therefore stand on the fact that Genocide (by any definition you care to name) is generally considered an Evil act. Therefore any Paladin (or indeed any Lawful Good being) would never countenance it's implementation in either thought or deed at the risk of no longer being Lawful good.
Edited for tone.
If Gods define "Good and Evil", no "Good God" would perform an evil act as that would be out of character with their ethos. Therefore no Good God would perform Genocide.
If Good and Evil are above the gods, no 'Good God' would perform an evil act because they were forbidden based on Good and Evil being above them. Therefore no Good God would perform Genocide.
We can debate all day which came first, the chicken or the egg. Either way you slice it, no good God would perform Genocide.
- Gods (or overgods, or whatever is above them... The Lady of Pain, I don't know) define "good" and "evil"
- A "good" God does not perform non-good tasks (and consequently, any task they perform is by definition "good")
Those we agree on. Then you say "no Good God would perform Genocide", and that's where we disagree. You assume genocide to be an inherently evil act; but who says that is the case? That's my whole argument; *you* may think it's "evil", but it's not you who makes the rules. If a "good" god were to condone/order/perform genocide, it would by definition be a "good" act (at least in that instance, not on principle). You assume your own, mortal definition of "good" and "evil" and apply it to the actions of the divine; in fact, it is the other way round.
No. we don't agree. You say that the gods define 'Good' and 'Evil'. I say that they are defined BY Good and Evil.
As for "No Good God would perform Genocide", there is absolutely a disconnect. And I think I finally understand it. You assume that Gods are Gods and all powerful (or at least more powerful than Good or evil). Therefore they can take whatever action they want and then CALL that action good or evil. I disagree completely.
In my view either
(a) The good gods act in a certain way that is consistent with good and thus are themselves good and define Good that way. In that scenario, they aren't compelled to act in any given way, but their nature is such that any action they would ever choose to take is inherently going to be a good one. They aren't going to kick babies as for instance, EVER. not because they are compelled to do Good, but because any action they chose to take would universally be the good choice.
or
(b) The powers of Good and Evil are above the gods and they are consigned to act in either a good or evil manner. In this scenario, they are compelled BY Good or Evil to only act in a given way.
In neither scenario would someone (to pick an action at random) "Kick babies" and then "Make" that a good act. In that case, if we suddenly name Bhaal as "Good" Then Murder becomes the new Black.
Red doesn't suddenly become Blue simply because the God of Red changes his pants.
But more than that, the fact that there are multiple Gods of Good or Evil more or less proves that Good and Evil supersede God's powers. Otherwise, in your way of thinking No person ever in Faerun or anywhere else can ever be good or evil, because if two 'Good' gods disagree on what is good, then every suddenly becomes evil.
As for Genocide being 'Evil', as I said before, if there is free will, then any sentient being with free will can be either good or evil. If that is the case, "Kill them ALL" invariably means that some 'Good' people will be killed. EVEN IF the Gods could foresee a time wherein the mere existence of a being from a given race would put the entire cosmos at risk, I don't believe that any Good god would merely say "Kill them all indiscriminately". They would certainly not condone that kind of cavalier attitude from any of their minions (least of all their Paladins).
Of course, things become more complicated when the gods aren't the one making the decisions directly. Free will, as you rightly point out, does play a pivotal role. However, the gods of D&D are not immaterial and removed from this reality the way gods are described in the real world; they do take an active hand in things, and they do have commandments, laws, oaths to uphold, etc. That's where the Paladins come in. They are some of the closest interpreters of divine will among mortals, but they are not merely left to their own devices in making decisions. They have a rigorous set of rules to follow. That's the difference to real-life priests, they don't have to assume, they are *commanded*. And these commands are the problems, because they can try and trouble mortals for the above-mentioned reasons: you must trust your god, even if the demands seem out of character to your mortal perception. I am not implying they *are* out of character, just that they may *appear* so, because of a lack of understanding of the divine.
The Gods of The Forgotten Realms are fictitious constructs based on the collective minds of the folks who write the book series and any DM who runs a game in The Forgotten Realms. They don't actually exist. They aren't "Unknowable". They are constructs, pure and simple.
Even if we were debating real philosophy, you are (how do they say it?) Pontificating on Air. And what is worse, your logic falls down on itself more times than it stands up, yet you continue to shift with the wind to try a different tac. Good luck in that.
Paladins being Paladins and the beacon of light and right, would not participate in prejudice or wanton destruction of any sentient being if there were another option open to them. Pure and simple.
You want to say that anything can mean anything or nothing based on your own whim and that if you want black to be white, that 'Because they are The Gods' that it is so. Only that isn't the case.
The Alignment system was made with a simplified binary leaning because it is a game. Law and Chaos. Good and Evil. One and Zero. The logical consistency you are asking for is quite simple. Good = Good and Evil = Evil. they are simplified such that people playing the game don't have to stretch themselves too much just to have fun. The gods are the same. Trying to spin some existential debate on the nature of what an orange is, isn't going to change that. In this case there actually is a spoon and it isn't bending. Sorry.
@Schneidend: Where does the system come from, then? I'm not too firm on that. Who defines "good" and "evil" in D&D? How do the gods know? Is that just an assumed axiomatic premise, as @the_spyder suggests, or has there been some explanation offered? Overgods? "Nature"? "The Balance"?
The notion of a 'good' God only works in a monotheistic system, where the God (via his followers) can define right and wrong. If you want to have a polytheistic system like D&D it is far better to leave the value judgments out and just create pantheons of gods and goddesses with competing interests and desires.
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Lawful_good_deities
Everybody wants to do right, but what is right depends on the alignment and faith.
Good characters are believing that everybody has a right to achieve "happiness" and are willing to help others to find it.
Neutral characters also believe that everybody has this right, but that everybody is responsible to achieve this themselves.
Evil character believe that they have the right to achieve their goals and that nobody has a right to stand in their way.
The dogma of a god places him/her/it into their place into the alignment spectrum.
E.g. Oghma is neutral because he only cares about knowledge disregarding if the knowledge is used to harm or help others.
Selune is good, because she tries to help others.
Umberlee is evil because she only cares about being venerated.
Each God has their own sphere of influence, and where they overlap, a different way of going about achieving that good. Saving lives might be seen as "Good". One god saves lives by preaching 'Turn the other cheek' another preaches 'help the needy' and yet another preaches 'find better ways to disagree'. All address more or less the same issue but are very different paths.
And the fact that the alignment of the current Mystra jumps all over the place depending how magic is viewed in the current edition ( from chaotic-neutral to lawful-neutral to neutral-good ) shows that goods are hardly constant.
I never said the gods were infallable (other than to attempt to represent another poster's point of view). I see the Forgotten realms Gods as more like the ancient Greek Gods who were constantly making mistakes.
Someone's view of someone/something else can be erratic without the subject itself being erratic. Other than that, I put it down to what Wizards thought would sell best. Doesn't mean that the constants of Good and Evil are not in fact constant.
You know that a man, a good man, with family and friends, will in the future kill a hundred other good persons. You're presented with this knowledge and a chance to kill this man before all that happens. What would you do? What would be the good thing to do? What would be the lawful good thing to do?
Just remember that with the knowledge and by inactivity, you're so guilty of the act as it's perpetrator.