Questions about Alignments

[Meridian]

So, a few questions about alignments I've been thinking, and somebody more experienced in D&D, especially Pathfinder, could answer.

First; what alignment is a character who is completely devoted to another, loving her/him more than anything and sworn to protect her/him. Regardless of the ward's alignment, this bodyguard-type character is prepared to go to any lengths make sure his ward is unharmed, and will obey any command to the letter without any kind of remorse or doubt; being told to share food to peasants and raze a village to the ground are met with equal sense of duty and efficiency. If something threatens the ward, even if perceived as a friend at the time, the character won't hesitate to kill or dispose of that threat.

Is this kind of a character Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, or something else altogether?

Another similar question; a character has evil motivations, but is friendly and kind despite them, thinking that "even though I want to destroy the world, there's no reason to be an ******* about it", or something similar. Neutral or Evil?

[hivedragon]

This is just my opinion, but I think alignment is mostly based on how you treat strangers. Being devoted to a loved one can fit any alignment.

Someone who would destroy the world if they had the chance is chaotic evil. If they wanted to rule the world if they had the chance they would be lawful evil. If they didn't care about what happened to the world while advancing some other goal they would be nuetral evil.

[NOhara24]

First one: Lawful Neutral. He always follows orders, and doesn't do anything unless instructed to and has no qualms if it's good or evil.

Second one: Lawful/Neutral Evil. If he just wants to watch the world burn and takes great pains to make sure it happens efficiently and follows the same Modus Operandi, Lawful Evil. If he just wants to watch it burn and couldn't give two craps about how his goal is accomplished, Neutral Evil.

[hamishspence]

So, a few questions about alignments I've been thinking, and somebody more experienced in D&D, especially Pathfinder, could answer.

First; what alignment is a character who is completely devoted to another, loving her/him more than anything and sworn to protect her/him. Regardless of the ward's alignment, this bodyguard-type character is prepared to go to any lengths make sure his ward is unharmed, and will obey any command to the letter without any kind of remorse or doubt; being told to share food to peasants and raze a village to the ground are met with equal sense of duty and efficiency. If something threatens the ward, even if perceived as a friend at the time, the character won't hesitate to kill or dispose of that threat.

Is this kind of a character Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, or something else altogether?

May depend on what deeds they've actually done.

Still- being willing to "raze a village to the ground with no remorse if ordered to" is a little tricky to justify a Neutral alignment for. If they have actually done so, I'd move the character's alignment to evil and until they actually repent and begin seeking to atone, it will stay there.


Another similar question; a character has evil motivations, but is friendly and kind despite them, thinking that "even though I want to destroy the world, there's no reason to be an ******* about it", or something similar. Neutral or Evil?

Evil. "wanting to destroy the world" is generally too lacking in respect for life to be otherwise. An evil character can be kind, and friendly- and still Evil.

[Shadowknight12]

Never, ever, ever, ever decide alignments based on the emotions a character feels. Everyone, from Good to Evil and Lawful to Chaotic, feels the same emotions. Even the most evil of people can feel love and adoration for another, and even the holiest paladin can feel anger and hatred. Even the most Chaotic of rebels can feel bound by duty to someone or something and even the most Lawful of obedient conformists can yearn for freedom and wanderlust.

The only way to truly decide alignments is to do so ethically and philosophically. Law and Chaos relate to the character's views on individuals and society, and whose authority the character respects the most. Lawful characters respect External Authorities more than Internal Authorities (that is, they hold what the people they deem as authorities say to be more important what they themselves think about a situation), while Chaotic characters respect Internal Authorities more than External Authorities (that is, they hold what their own consciences say to be more important than what people they recognise as authorities say). The Law is the codified and enforced expression of an External Authority's will, but not all Lawful characters need obey it. If the Lawful character does not recognise a given authority, they are under no compunction to obey their Laws (which is why a Paladin can still fight slavery in a country where slavery is legal).

Furthermore, a thief or bandit may still be Lawful even if they break the Law because they do not recognise the authorities of the Guard, the King, and so on. They recognise the authority of the Thieves' Guild leader or the bandit chief, for example, and that's why they're Lawful. A truly Chaotic thief would work alone or only loosely affiliated with other criminals, for they wouldn't recognise any authorities. As a counterpart, a truly Chaotic soldier or Guardsman would be the type you see in most action cop movies, the ones that ignore the rules and regulations to pursue a case until they find the truth/clear their names/get revenge/etc, even if they've had to hand over their badge and were presumably "off the case."

As for Good and Evil, D&D puts this squarely on a Selflessness vs. Malice scale. Good characters would sacrifice themselves or risk their lives for complete strangers. Neutral characters would sacrifice themselves or risk their lives for loved ones. Evil characters would sacrifice themselves or risk their lives for nobody, save very specific and truly rare exceptions. Evil characters also delight with the pain of others and seek to inflict it at every turn.

The bodyguard could be any of the nine alignments, since you've been describing emotions more than anything else. Being unflinchingly ready to murder anyone who could be a threat might preclude being of Good alignment, but that depends on whether they'd accept an enemy's surrender. If they do, then Good is still on the board. If they wouldn't, they are most likely non-Good.

EDIT: Being willing to slaughter innocents for the ward would definitely be the mark of a non-Good (possibly Evil, if they feel no remorse) character.

As for the one with evil intentions, it depends on what those intentions are. "Destroy the world" is very much Evil with capital E (save bizarre campaign-specific exceptions) and no matter how affable they are, that does not make them any less evil about it.

Alignment is not about what you show the world, it's what you are inside.

[hamishspence]

As for Good and Evil, D&D puts this squarely on a Selflessness vs. Malice scale. Good characters would sacrifice themselves or risk their lives for complete strangers. Neutral characters would sacrifice themselves or risk their lives for loved ones. Evil characters would sacrifice themselves or risk their lives for nobody, save very specific and truly rare exceptions. Evil characters also delight with the pain of others and seek to inflict it at every turn.

There's still room for nuance and exception within this.

An Evil character could be willing to sacrifice themselves for strangers, but (thanks to their job as professional torturer) have developed a delight in the pain of others (the "deserving of it") and inflict it often, as much for their own gratification as because they're ordered to.

Take Jack Bauer, and dial up the Evilness a bit.

[Meridian]

If the bodyguard-type character only respects the authority of his ward, and no-one else, he's lawful, and his axis on the good/evil scale depends largely on what he has done, then? So if the master is good, he is as well, as far as I understood, even while being ruthless and ready to murder without a second thought if needed, right?

The other character is the type that pets dogs, gives candy to orphans, helps an old lady across the street, all the while planning on how he'd ultimately bring an end to the world as we know it. What if he genuinely believed that his desire to bring a fiery end to the world was good, and really thought that everything he has done was for the greater good? So evil deeds, evil motive, but believes himself to be good. A "knight templar" type character.

A third archetype to ponder; a character with noble goals and good intentions is brutally ruthless in execution, and has done horrifying deeds to further his vision. What would be his alignment? Evil deeds, with a genuinely good motive, in a nutshell.

[hamishspence]

A third archetype to ponder; a character with noble goals and good intentions is brutally ruthless in execution, and has done horrifying deeds to further his vision. What would be his alignment? Evil deeds, with a genuinely good motive, in a nutshell.

Based on the D&D splatbooks I read (Champions of Ruin, Heroes of Horror, etc) such a character could be Neutral or Evil, depending on the seriousness of the evil deeds.

Mild evil deeds, genuinely good motive, in Heroes of Horror is the general style of the "flexible Neutral antihero".

Champions of Ruin suggests that when Evil deeds become a common solution to "problems" even if the motive is Good, such a character can be Evil aligned.

[FearlessGnome]

So, a few questions about alignments I've been thinking, and somebody more experienced in D&D, especially Pathfinder, could answer.

First; what alignment is a character who is completely devoted to another, loving her/him more than anything and sworn to protect her/him. Regardless of the ward's alignment, this bodyguard-type character is prepared to go to any lengths make sure his ward is unharmed, and will obey any command to the letter without any kind of remorse or doubt; being told to share food to peasants and raze a village to the ground are met with equal sense of duty and efficiency. If something threatens the ward, even if perceived as a friend at the time, the character won't hesitate to kill or dispose of that threat.

Is this kind of a character Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, or something else altogether?

Another similar question; a character has evil motivations, but is friendly and kind despite them, thinking that "even though I want to destroy the world, there's no reason to be an ******* about it", or something similar. Neutral or Evil?

The first guy is Lawful Neutral. Like all other machines. Exceedingly boring, too, unless you actually flesh out the relationship between them and their ward.

The second guy you do not give enough information on. You can justify wanting to destroy the world in different ways. Not all Evil characters are petty. Sometimes they can be high up in a church, believe in the Ideals of the church, and just have much more of a "The ends justify the means" attitude to ordering the deaths of innocents. A Villain could want to destroy the world to get revenge, to sour the grapes (If I can't have it noone will!), because he just Hates everything, or because he deems that there is so much suffering in the world that no world at all would be better, or for other reasons. The last scenario, the guy I like to call Mr Damage Control, could arguably be Neutral, and he would certainly do what he could to mitigate suffering on his road to Enough Power To End It All. Either because he knows he might fail, and so doesn't want to leave behind a worse world than he started out with, or because, quite frankly, Suffering Is Bad, and should be mitigated unless it is absolutely necessary.

[Kuulvheysoon]

So, a few questions about alignments I've been thinking, and somebody more experienced in D&D, especially Pathfinder, could answer.

First; what alignment is a character who is completely devoted to another, loving her/him more than anything and sworn to protect her/him. Regardless of the ward's alignment, this bodyguard-type character is prepared to go to any lengths make sure his ward is unharmed, and will obey any command to the letter without any kind of remorse or doubt; being told to share food to peasants and raze a village to the ground are met with equal sense of duty and efficiency. If something threatens the ward, even if perceived as a friend at the time, the character won't hesitate to kill or dispose of that threat.

Is this kind of a character Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, or something else altogether?

Another similar question; a character has evil motivations, but is friendly and kind despite them, thinking that "even though I want to destroy the world, there's no reason to be an ******* about it", or something similar. Neutral or Evil?

The first is definitely LN. Almost textbook LN, actually.

The second feels more LE than NE to me, unless he doesn't care about how he goes on to destroy the world. The characterization sounds as if he has a definite plan outlined, so I'd be more inclined to lean towards LE.

[Meridian]

So, the first guy would be lawful neutral? She sounds rather blank, but there will be fleshing to her character through the relationship with her ward.



To elaborate on the second guy;

He's a mage who specializes in raising the dead and manipulating thoughts and bending the will of others through mundane deceit, diplomacy and magical means. His goal is to create a world of undeath, stagnant, but free of the miseries of life and under his rule. He sees life as chaotic and unpredictable, and that people do more harm than good to the cosmos as a whole, and that his rule would bring balance to the world - and undead are easy to control. He recognizes himself to be a bad guy, but doesn't really care, as long as his vision comes true. His motives are both power and stability.

At the same time, he is friendly and even kind, willing to help out a poor peasant without a need for a reward, while striving to gain enough power to end all life. He sees himself as a god, rather than a mortal. He never breaks his word, but bends around it; like lawful evil devils would. However, he has redeeming qualities beyond his nefarious goals.

[Shadowknight12]

There's still room for nuance and exception within this.

An Evil character could be willing to sacrifice themselves for strangers, but (thanks to their job as professional torturer) have developed a delight in the pain of others (the "deserving of it") and inflict it often, as much for their own gratification as because they're ordered to.

Take Jack Bauer, and dial up the Evilness a bit.

Oh, of course. I didn't delve too deeply into Good vs. Evil because I doubted anyone needed actual explanations for that (not to mention, it's a thorny issue).

I don't know if your proposed character would be indeed Evil or merely Neutral. If the character has both genuine altruism and genuine sadism, it'd average out to Neutral unless one was greater than the other. After all, schadenfreude is sadism lite, and we don't say people are evil for laughing when someone slips on a banana peel, do we?


If the bodyguard-type character only respects the authority of his ward, and no-one else, he's lawful, and his axis on the good/evil scale depends largely on what he has done, then? So if the master is good, he is as well, as far as I understood, even while being ruthless and ready to murder without a second thought if needed, right?

If they place the ward's authority above the authority of their own conscience, then yes, they are Lawful.

However, Good and Evil are a bit trickier, since it's not only "what he has done" but "what he would be inclined to do." If he wouldn't feel remorse for killing innocents "in the line of duty," as it were, he's most likely Evil.

His alignment has nothing to do with his master's, though Lawful characters have it very, very hard to remain as they are in the Good-Evil scale if their authorities are not the same alignment as them, for they will be forced to choose between changing alignments to match their authorities' (which happens if they continuously obey their orders) or disobey them to preserve their alignment.


The other character is the type that pets dogs, gives candy to orphans, helps an old lady across the street, all the while planning on how he'd ultimately bring an end to the world as we know it. What if he genuinely believed that his desire to bring a fiery end to the world was good, and really thought that everything he has done was for the greater good? So evil deeds, evil motive, but believes himself to be good. A "knight templar" type character.

It depends on whether he's objectively right or not. That's what I meant when I said "save bizarre setting-specific cases" before. If, in your campaign, ending the world in a certain way is an act of Good, then that character is indeed as Good as it gets.

If ending the world is objectively Evil, then it depends on whether the character knows that what he intends to do is evil. If they do, they are most likely Evil (unless they go to extremes in their altruism, in which case they might be neutral until the moment they do the deed). If they don't, then that character is Good until he commits the deed, at which point they will most likely change alignment to Neutral or Evil (DM's discretion).

If ending the world is Neutral, they are probably Good, unless they are not all that altruistic, in which case they're probably Neutral.


A third archetype to ponder; a character with noble goals and good intentions is brutally ruthless in execution, and has done horrifying deeds to further his vision. What would be his alignment? Evil deeds, with a genuinely good motive, in a nutshell.

Classic "ends justify the means" character. This depends on your DM. If they see alignment as being a taint, then an evil character who pretends to be good (and does good deeds) to further some long-term evil goal will eventually turn Good just as likely as that character you described will eventually turn Evil. Whether achieving that goal helps compensate the taint or not depends on the magnitude of the goal versus the amount of accumulated taint.

If alignment is not a taint, then you must compare the magnitudes of the good goal versus the evil actions. If the magnitude of the goal is so big and the magnitudes of the actions are so small as to be negligible, the character is still Good. Example: Saving the world vs. casting a few low-level spells with the [Evil] descriptor. If the magnitudes are comparable, the character is Neutral. Example: Saving the world vs. sacrificing a large amount of innocents to do so. If the magnitudes of the actions outweigh the magnitude of the goal, the character is Evil. Example: Saving the world vs. Centuries dedicated to mass genocide, mass torture, mass rape, casting Vile/Evil magic, etc.

It goes both ways, too, for the evil character pretending to be good. A lifetime of altruism and a heroic sacrifice just to kick someone in the shins for petty revenge means the character is Good, "evil" goal aside.

[hamishspence]

Classic "ends justify the means" character. This depends on your DM. If they see alignment as being a taint, then an evil character who pretends to be good (and does good deeds) to further some long-term evil goal will eventually turn Good just as likely as that character you described will eventually turn Evil. Whether achieving that goal helps compensate the taint or not depends on the magnitude of the goal versus the amount of accumulated taint.

If alignment is not a taint, then you must compare the magnitudes of the good goal versus the evil actions. If the magnitude of the goal is so big and the magnitudes of the actions are so small as to be negligible, the character is still Good. Example: Saving the world vs. casting a few low-level spells with the [Evil] descriptor. If the magnitudes are comparable, the character is Neutral. Example: Saving the world vs. sacrificing a large amount of innocents to do so. If the magnitudes of the actions outweigh the magnitude of the goal, the character is Evil. Example: Saving the world vs. Centuries dedicated to mass genocide, mass torture, mass rape, casting Vile/Evil magic, etc.

It goes both ways, too, for the evil character pretending to be good. A lifetime of altruism and a heroic sacrifice just to kick someone in the shins for petty revenge means the character is Good, "evil" goal aside.

It's possible that only "evil alignment is a taint" rather than good- hence there being Corrupt acts in FC2 (enough of them unatoned for and you're doomed to one of the evil afterlives no matter how much Good you did), but no source that has "Exalted acts" (enough of them and you go to a Good afterlife no matter how much Evil you did in life).

Evil might outweigh Good in the "scales"- so lots of Good and a little Evil might end up as Neutral aligned,

lots of Good and lots of Evil might end up as Evil-aligned.

[Shadowknight12]

It's possible that only "evil alignment is a taint" rather than good- hence there being Corrupt acts in FC2 (enough of them unatoned for and you're doomed to one of the evil afterlives no matter how much Good you did), but no source that has "Exalted acts" (enough of them and you go to a Good afterlife no matter how much Evil you did in life).

Evil might outweigh Good in the "scales"- so lots of Good and a little Evil might end up as Neutral aligned,

lots of Good and lots of Evil might end up as Evil-aligned.

I do not and will never subscribe to that imbalanced, unequal and asymmetric interpretation of the rules. Corrupt acts are variant rules in a non-core, obscure book, meant to emphasise FC2's theme of corruption and redemption. You can't have redemption unless you have evil to redeem, and with all the "good" adventurers do most of the time (arguable, I know), the book needed an easy way to ensure that players who wanted to play damned characters could do so without having to rape, gruesomely torture and slaughter their way through the campaign.

EDIT: This is not meant to disparage anyone who sees Evil and Good the way you've outlined, merely explaining why I am never going to adhere to the interpretation you've posited and why I stand by my previous post.

[hamishspence]

I do not and will never subscribe to that imbalanced, unequal and asymmetric interpretation of the rules.

It's not really that illogical.

Imagine a character who walks about saving lives, and murdering, equally often. Are they Neutral or evil?

To quote Frank & K's Tome of Fiends:


Most importantly, the inverse of Evil is not Good. It really takes a lot less harm to be Evil than it takes aid to be Good. If you fix twenty people's roofs, you're Jimmy the Helpful Thatcher. But if you eat your neighbor's daughter, you're Jimmy the Cannibal – and no additional carpentry assistance will change that.

[FearlessGnome]

Of some small relevance to the discussion may be the feats "Veil of Cyric" (City of Splendor) and "Touch of Benevolence" (Champions of Ruin). Veil of Cyric allows a "The ends justify the means" type villain to not detect as Evil, because they do Bad things for what they they think are Good reasons. Touch of Benevolence gives the Baddie a 50% chance not to count as evil when targeted with an effect, because despite their black heart, they occasionally suffer pangs of regret and give out pieces of candy without putting razors in them.

These are the only feats/abilities I am aware of that represent mechanically an Evil character in a universe of Objective Morality having Subjective views on Morality of their own.

Doesn't seem to do much about the whole "Afterlife sucks for Evil people" thing, though.

[Shadowknight12]

It's not really that illogical.

Imagine a character who walks about saving lives, and murdering, equally often. Are they Neutral or evil?

To quote Frank & K's Tome of Fiends:

I never said it was illogical, I said it was imbalanced, unequal and asymmetrical. I like my opposing cosmic forces to be balanced, symmetrical and equal. Call it a matter of personal preference if you must.

And for the record, I'd call that character Neutral. Some people might frown on running alignment like an accounting book, but that's the way I run things and only optional rules and fringe elements directly oppose that.

[hamishspence]

So a doctor who is a serial killer could be Neutral in D&D terms?

Seems a bit off to me. "Killing for personal pleasure"/"Killing for personal gain" is a hallmark of Evil alignment in the PHB.

And I'd say that applies even if the character "regularly does good deeds".

[Shadowknight12]

So a doctor who is a serial killer could be Neutral in D&D terms?

Seems a bit off to me. "Killing for personal pleasure"/"Killing for personal gain" is a hallmark of Evil alignment in the PHB.

And I'd say that applies even if the character "regularly does good deeds".

It depends on the magnitudes of the good acts and the magnitudes of the evil acts, as I explained in a previous post. A doctor does not, in my DM opinion, do enough good to outweight murder. If that doctor had the power to resurrect infinitely and gave his own life to save someone else's for every murder he committed, then yes, he would very likely be Neutral.

If he kicked someone in the shins for every time he prescribed a painkiller, he'd also be Neutral.

It's all about the magnitudes. In your quoted example before, fixing 20 roofs does not come even close in magnitude to eating someone's daughter.

[hamishspence]

TV tropes called this "Stupid Neutral"

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidNeutral

Some True Neutral people are devoted to the Balance Between Good and Evil - They fight only because the forces of darkness grow too strong. The problem comes when they become ''militantly'' neutral; so devoted to not taking sides that they lash out against both Good and Evil without distinguishing between Friend or Foe. This usually takes the form of always siding with the underdog; the moment one side gains the upper hand, they'll pull a Face Heel Turn (or a Heel Face Turn) to make sure both sides are 'equal'. This can lead to a very unreliable fellow and a Wild Card whose misguided morals lead his former allies to cut him down despite his protests that he was only following his heart.

Stupid Neutral people tend to think of morality as balancing a metaphysical checkbook; any evil deed can be 'cancelled out' by committing an equally good deed. No remorse or atonement is needed; to these people, there is no Moral Event Horizon past which their actions cannot be forgiven by good works (or evil works, as the case may be). In short, these people are the types who will build an orphanage and then "balance it out" by burning down the orphanage across the street. This pattern of kicking the dog and then stopping to pet it immediately afterwards just results in a very neurotic dog... and a very confused audience.

The way I see it though anyone with a mindset like this:

any evil deed can be 'cancelled out' by committing an equally good deed. No remorse or atonement is needed; to these people, there is no Moral Event Horizon past which their actions cannot be forgiven by good works (or evil works, as the case may be).

is already much closer to Evil than to Neutral.

[Shadowknight12]

TV tropes called this "Stupid Neutral"

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidNeutral


The way I see it though anyone with a mindset like this:

any evil deed can be 'cancelled out' by committing an equally good deed. No remorse or atonement is needed; to these people, there is no Moral Event Horizon past which their actions cannot be forgiven by good works (or evil works, as the case may be).

is already much closer to Evil than to Neutral.

Well, thank goodness I don't let others determine the worth of my personal preferences, then! Can you imagine how embarrassed I'd be right now if that was the case? :smallamused:

Jokes aside, let's just let the OP decide which of the two preferences better fits his own or his DM's. There's no need to argue incessantly as neither of us is likely to change his mind. I don't mind my preferences being labelled stupid neutral. I've been called worse. :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

It did coincide rather closely with the alignment decriptions in older editions.

And those TV Tropes descriptions apply more to characters who act according to the stereotype of their alignment even when it would be foolish to do so.

Stupid Good, Stupid Evil etc etc all act in a way which would rapidly get them killed in-universe.

So, the character is "evil to the point of being stupidly evil" so to speak.

It is indeed the OP's choice how they interpret "a character who routinely commits both Good and Evil deeds, of comparable magnitude".

[TuggyNE]

He's a mage who specializes in raising the dead and manipulating thoughts and bending the will of others through mundane deceit, diplomacy and magical means. His goal is to create a world of undeath, stagnant, but free of the miseries of life and under his rule. He sees life as chaotic and unpredictable, and that people do more harm than good to the cosmos as a whole, and that his rule would bring balance to the world - and undead are easy to control. He recognizes himself to be a bad guy, but doesn't really care, as long as his vision comes true. His motives are both power and stability.

At the same time, he is friendly and even kind, willing to help out a poor peasant without a need for a reward, while striving to gain enough power to end all life. He sees himself as a god, rather than a mortal. He never breaks his word, but bends around it; like lawful evil devils would. However, he has redeeming qualities beyond his nefarious goals.

This is nothing but Lawful Evil; he hates Chaos, doesn't mind being Evil, wants "power and stability", bends his word for his "nefarious goals"... the fact that he wants some good things doesn't change all that. In fact, he's as much a textbook LE as Tarquin is.

[UndeadCleric]

Slightly strange question:
What about someone who is genuinely good but would end the world if they could?

What if this description was attached?
He who helps people, even if doing so harms him and is usually a perfect example of a good being. He does this to improve life as much as possible but if given the option, he would end the world because he considers the world unsaveably evil.

[Shadowknight12]

Slightly strange question:
What about someone who is genuinely good but would end the world if they could?

What if this description was attached?
He who helps people, even if doing so harms him and is usually a perfect example of a good being. He does this to improve life as much as possible but if given the option, he would end the world because he considers the world unsaveably evil.

That's very similar to what the OP asked in one of his hypotheticals, so it applies as well:


It depends on whether he's objectively right or not. That's what I meant when I said "save bizarre setting-specific cases" before. If, in your campaign, ending the world in a certain way is an act of Good, then that character is indeed as Good as it gets.

If ending the world is objectively Evil, then it depends on whether the character knows that what he intends to do is evil. If they do, they are most likely Evil (unless they go to extremes in their altruism, in which case they might be neutral until the moment they do the deed). If they don't, then that character is Good until he commits the deed, at which point they will most likely change alignment to Neutral or Evil (DM's discretion).

If ending the world is Neutral, they are probably Good, unless they are not all that altruistic, in which case they're probably Neutral.

So, in short, it depends on whether the world IS unsaveably evil or not, according to the Objective Morality D&D runs on.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I prefer Exalted's much simpler alignment system.

It doesn't have one. There is no "good" only "better", and perhaps not even "better". Except for the Ebon Dragon. The Ebon Dragon is definitely "worse".