Good Aligned Characters

[*Mick64]

The part where it says they hurl spells which are defined by this server and Sigil law as a hostile action at you and attack if they feel threatened. What part of that implies they selflessly help human civilization progress?

I'm not sure what Sigil (Dryads don't live in Sigil) Law (Lawful =/= good) has to do with the Goodness of a dryad. They also use those spells in -combat-. Unless you are arguing that any being that has the -ability- to harm another is evil. Attacking when threatened is called self defense and almost no moral system, especially not D&D's call it an evil act. Their description says they try to -avoid- violence as much as possible. I'm not sure how that's evil.

You can find a book that might say one thing you want to hear, and leave out tons of contradictory examples.

I can find other examples, however you still haven't put forward an actual quote to support your views. Though even if you do, it's more likely that the writer was wrong (Since D&D books have been written by a wide range of people). Moral Relativism is even less compatible with the world of Planescape then the real world. Good and Evil don't depend on the judgment of the observer. Every creature has one, single alignment. Bob the Goblin being hit by a paladin's Smite Evil can't be both dead to me (Because I consider him evil) and alive to you (Because you consider him neutral). Characters can be -wrong- about what alignment another character is, but there IS an objective, absolute truth on that character's alignment.

Is a fey character slaughtering Brux fey good or evil?

One action does not define a character's alignment, it does affect it.
Such action can be any alignment depending on circumstances. Killing something of your kind does not make it more Evil in D&D. Killing Evil creatures is also not an Evil act in itself in D&D. If you are killing them for a good cause, that would make the act good. If you are killing them for your own sadistic pleasure, that would make the act Evil.

Is a paladin slaughtering a village of evil or neutral humans good or evil?

Slaughtering Neutral people not to protect someone would make the act Evil. If the entire village is 100% Evil members, then it could be Evil, Neutral or Good depending on why the paladin is doing it. See above.

If a treant cuts down a forest is it good or evil?

The race of the thing doing the act does not matter. Cutting down a forest is not in itself a Good or Evil act in D&D, though things can modify that. If you are cutting it down to create farmland so that poor families can settle and feed themselves, then it's Good. If you are cutting it down without caring for the fact that a bunch of Elves use the forest as their home? Then it's Evil.

If a human cuts down a forest is it good or evil?

See above. Race does not matter to the alignment of actions.

If a human cuts down a village is it good or evil?

Not sure what you mean by cutting down a village.

What about cannibalism?

I'm not 100% sure about that one, I don't remember reading about it, but I suspect that cannibalism is Always Evil.

Vegitarianism?

Neither Good or Evil. D&D's moral system does not seem to put any inherent moral value on the lives of animals. If anything, it's very slightly Lawful because it demands self-discipline (At least for humans and other races who normally eat meat).

[*Whitefly]

Obviously there's no such thing as absolute morality in real life, but in this game setting there is absolute morality whether you like it or not, and answers to moral conundrums are up to the DM to solve.

[*Mick64]

I wouldn't exactly say Obviously, Whitefly, quite the few moral philosphers (Probably most notably Immanuel Kant) have put forth theories of moral absolutism which where certainly well-argued, weather you accept them or not.

But even the best argument for moral absolutism doesn't isn't even close to being as convincing as the fact that in D&D, Smite Evil, Detect Good and Circle of Protection from Chaos are a thing with tangible effects.

[*rapsam2003]

What about cannibalism?

I'm not 100% sure about that one, I don't remember reading about it, but I suspect that cannibalism is Always Evil.

Page 10 of the Book of Vile Darkness ( Google Drive link ) talks about this. It's very obvious, based on the fact that it's listed with other evil fetishes and addictions, that cannibalism is ALWAYS evil in D&D.

[*Strawberry Jam]

I personally hope everyone knows where to draw the line and I give the benefit of the doubt. But I will admit that I've experienced moments while playing games either as a bystander or also involved that some ppl cross lines they shouldn't have.

It tends to be the case no amount of rules or debating fixes it if your fiction actually hurts another player.

[*Mick64]

Try to read through Herodotus, Thucidydes or Xenophon and you'll see that the everyday practice and religious customs were completely different, same as was the general attitude towards their gods.

Any text in particular you recommend?

[*Embersworn]

Everything what they were writing, which is not that much, considering Herodotus and Thucidydes are like... one book each. Xenophon is maybe three or four more complete works.

None of these three was a philosopher, so they were writing from a point of view of a common man, little theorising. Though Xenophon tried to be a philosopher too, but he was as successful at it as you'd expect from a mercenary. :X

[*MimiFearthegn]

You'll drive yourself nuts if you try to draw too strong of parallels between D&D religion and real world religion. Its a really basic take on paganism written by people who weren't culturally pagan or dedicated students of the ancient world, and usually played by people who aren't experts either.

D&D worlds are written to be fun and make general sense to people who casually want to run through adventures killing monsters.

Don't get me wrong, I love pulling in details from the real world and incorporating them into my RP, but the game world won't keep up with it very well!

[*Strawberry Jam]

I'm not seeing the dangerous creature who wants to murder-kill all mortals on sight here.

The part where it says they hurl spells which are defined by this server and Sigil law as a hostile action at you and attack if they feel threatened. What part of that implies they selflessly help human civilization progress?

How about nymphs that blind you. Permanently. Zero hoots given.

You can find a book that might say one thing you want to hear, and leave out tons of contradictory examples.

Is a fey character slaughtering Brux fey good or evil?
Is a paladin slaughtering a village of evil or neutral humans good or evil?
If a treant cuts down a forest is it good or evil?
If a human cuts down a forest is it good or evil?
If a human cuts down a village is it good or evil?
What about cannibalism?
Vegitarianism?

Moral absolutes don't hold up when you try to apply it to entirely different species. It's an endless argument you don't win.

[*Embersworn]

Is a fey character slaughtering Brux fey good or evil?
Is a paladin slaughtering a village of evil or neutral humans good or evil?
If a treant cuts down a forest is it good or evil?
If a human cuts down a forest is it good or evil?
If a human cuts down a village is it good or evil?
What about cannibalism?
Vegitarianism?

Moral absolutes don't hold up when you try to apply it to entirely different species. It's an endless argument you don't win.

What kind of an absurd example it is?

It's pretty obvious that an act of murder is an evil thing and the paladin won't stay a paladin for very long doing this kind of things.

It's perfectly fine for LG characters to fight or kill as long as it has to be done, aka - they must fight to stop someone else from harming others.
If he finds this entire village trying to kill him or others on the battlefield then it's fine. It's not fine if he walks into a village and starts cutting people down.

Also, vegetarianism? Cuting down trees? Wut?

I think you're making up extreme examples out of exceptions right now just to make some moot point.