Am I evil? (So to speak)

[Invisible Queen]

I'll be the first to admit I don't know a whole lot about roleplaying systems. But they fascinate me and I want to learn more.

What I want to know today is, what's the alignment of a person who decides to be evil for a greater good?

Specifically, through a series of philosophical arguments, our hero realizes that the world needs evil to function at its best. An evil force bands people together, keeps them on their toes, advances the development of technology; and in addition it gives people something to fight, to focus their negative energy on - to keep them from hurting each other - and in the battle, in being close to death, people feel alive.

Hiring an army and invading surrounding countries, or whichever way he decides to do evil things, have a lot of undeniably good results in a greater perspective.

He does this even though it causes his deep personal pain to hurt people; and such a sacrifice for the greater good leads me to believe he's lawful good.

But he causes a lot of damage to innocent people. That's clearly some form of evil.

Or maybe he's true neutral, acting as a balancing force between good and evil.

So what is he?

[Dan_Hemmens]

So what is he?


Sarcastic Answer: Chaotic Tedious.

Longer answer - if your character decides that some kind of magical cosmic justice will cause all of his evil deeds to have good outcomes, then your character is just making up crap in order to justify himself.

[Invisible Queen]

I can see that, but it's not like he makes things up. The good results are very tangible, even if separate from himself. He knows his deeds in themselves don't have good outcomes, but he is not interested in justifying himself. He's willing to become a monster in order to save the world, to steal a line from "Preacher".

Though I guess that still makes him evil, since he simply chooses, personally, to be evil.

[Glittersamas]

*Gets the song 'Am I Evil' stuck in his head*

If he truly believed that he is ultimately promoting 'good', then maybe he would be neutral. He's certainly not good. Actively and willingly causing pain and suffering is an evil act. His saving grace is that he doesn't do it for personal gain. Maybe.

If you are the DM, then it's really your call. Most D&D games are pretty black and white and this type of question is generally avoided/not addressed. In a standard D&D game, this guy would definitely be evil. But in a standard D&D game, he wouldn't have such a complex motive.
This could lead to an interesting role-play experience. Imagine the pc's (player characters) encountering the big bad evil guy only to find out he is not, in fact, evil.
The thing that strikes me most, and is the crux in my opinion, is his 'sacrifice.' What he is really sacrificing is his morality in the name of good. Seems misguided to me. There is a saying that there are some mistakes you need a PhD to make. This sounds like one of those. Did he have this conversation with a disguised devil? Seems likely. Perhaps this devil is his personal advisor? This is giving me a great idea for a campaign. Thanks. :D
Now, if this character is a pc, then it's up to the DM. I can't imagine many DM's letting him keep a good alignment though.

As far as the Law vs. Chaos axis- give him what you want.

[NullAshton]

It would be True Neutral, I believe. The true neutral that believes that a balance in alignments is good and healthy for the world, and strives to keep that balance intact at all times.

[Invisible Queen]

Interesting points, guys. I guess alignments aren't all easy even for seasoned players.

For the question, no, those philosophical arguments I mentioned was only in his head.

*Gets the song 'Am I Evil' stuck in his head*
Hee hee, just as I planned. *cackle* :xykon:

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Psychologically speaking, only actual psychopaths consider their actions, as they commit them, evil. Normal, healthy people truly believe that what they're doing, even if their choice is in fact evil, is good.

[Invisible Queen]

Oh no, there's plenty of people who do things they consider evil. Why do you think Catholic priests have to hear confessions all the time?

But then, I've heard all levels of psychological activity is madness. . .

[Woot Spitum]

I think it depends on whether or not he's right. Unless there is indisputable evidence that he is right, then he's evil. Quick question, are you playing a Dragonlance campaign? The whole "there must be balance between good, evil, and neutral" thing is pretty important in the Dragonlance world, and I could see such a character arising in that situation. My personal opinion is that there will always be more than enough evil in the world, but it is up to the individual to choose not to participate.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Controlled Evil for the greater good? Sounds Lawful Evil to me. Especially if the character spends that much time rationalizing his position.

Bear in mind, this is from a D&D perspective, where Evil is Evil.

(Spoilers for the Eberron Campaign Setting follow, if you care)
A very good example of the character you're describing is King Kaius I, from the Eberron Campaign Setting. He literally became a monster to save the world. He became a vampire, imprisoned and replaced his grandson on the throne, and rules his nation with an iron fist. He's a monster, an impostor, a traitor, and a Machiavellian schemer, but he did it all to bring peace to the world and prosperity to his nation.

Among the rulers of the warring Five Nations, he was the first to see the war as the pointless waste of life it was, and took the throne to lead the charge to the negotiating table, helping to end a hundred-year-long war. He had also seem the depraved and oppressive depths to which the previous, extremely popular state religion could sink, so he abolished it and established martial law partly in an effort to stamp it out.

Kaius is Lawful Evil, but his heart's in the right place. Until someone stakes him.

Now, compare this to Queen Aurala of a neighboring country, NG bastion of sweetness and light who wants to precipitate another massive war to spread her admittedly benevolent rule over the entire continent...

[Genome]

Psychologically speaking, only actual psychopaths consider their actions, as they commit them, evil. Normal, healthy people truly believe that what they're doing, even if their choice is in fact evil, is good.

Not necessarily, Viscount.
When someone commits a certain evil act for the first time, they often know it was wrong and feel guilty. If they continue to do evil, then their mind will be at conflict and they will:
A. rationalize how it is okay
B. decide that they only care about what is "good" or satisfying for them
C. cease their evil actions
D. recognize that it is wrong but not have the willpower to stop

[Invisible Queen]

Quick question, are you playing a Dragonlance campaign? The whole "there must be balance between good, evil, and neutral" thing is pretty important in the Dragonlance world, and I could see such a character arising in that situation. My personal opinion is that there will always be more than enough evil in the world, but it is up to the individual to choose not to participate.
I'm not playing anything, actually. Just writing a story. ^_^U

[Woot Spitum]

I'm not playing anything, actually. Just writing a story. ^_^U

Oh. I guess then it would depend on whether or not evil is really necessary to the cosmic balance of your world. Now that I think about it though, I would have to conclude that the character would have to be evil. After all, if he is trying to shift the cosmic balance towards evil, wouldn't he have to be evil? Otherwise, his actions, since they are for the longterm good of humanity would actually contribute a "net good" to the world's alignment axis and thus have the exact opposite effect of his intentions.

[Glittersamas]

Hee hee, just as I planned. *cackle* :xykon:

"Yes, I *&$## AM!"
:smallfurious: :smallbiggrin:

[Piedmon_Sama]

The "Balance" ideal is generally reserved to Druids, who view it as a sort of wolf/sheep-balance-of-nature kind of ideal. At times the balance must swing back and forth between good and evil, so long as the pendulum is never upset.

It's really hard to judge your character without seeing specific examples. What behavior, exactly, is he condoning for the greater good here? Genocide? Repression of a populace? The murder of a single person? It's difficult to say, IMO, without more concrete details.

[OzymandiasVolt]

If you do an evil act to cause something good to happen, YOU ARE STILL DOING AN EVIL ACT.

[Invisible Queen]

It's really hard to judge your character without seeing specific examples. What behavior, exactly, is he condoning for the greater good here? Genocide? Repression of a populace? The murder of a single person? It's difficult to say, IMO, without more concrete details.
All of the above. . . well, probably not genocide, not intentional anyway. Or, how precious is the race we're talking about here? Causing too much damage would be counter-productive to the plan. So we can assume he'll go as far as the size and population density of the world allows.

[goat]

But does that evil action make the PERSON evil?

Think of Ozymandias in Watchmen. His actions are certainly evil, but it's questionable whether he is.

[Indon]

The "balance must be maintained!" outlook is precisely the 2'nd edition definition of True Neutral.

So I'd call the guy neutral, _if_ he would be willing to do good when the balance he maintains demands it.

[Attilargh]

Book of Exalted Deeds states that an Evil act done to a Good end is still a concession to Evil and thus shifts the cosmic balance in favor of Evil. I don't know what that means, but it sounds like a "Yes" to your question.

I can't help but think of the Operative from Serenity, by the way.

[Deathcow]

I really like characters like this. A concept I have floating around in my head for a future character is someone who feels as though his past actions have already damned him, but still wants to do good so he hunts down and kills bad guys through whatever means necessary, since he doesn't care about his own personal salvation/morality anymore.

I usually peg this type of character as some kind of Neutral, or in odd cases, Chaotic Good (heavy on the Chaotic, light on the Good).

[Lord Iames Osari]

It's really hard to judge your character without seeing specific examples. What behavior, exactly, is he condoning for the greater good here? Genocide? Repression of a populace? The murder of a single person? It's difficult to say, IMO, without more concrete details.

I'd have to say that depending on the severity of the evils he's embracing, I'd put him somewhere on the LN-LE scale.

[squishycube]

I think the D&D alignment system is much too limited to represent real (and complicated) personalities like this.
I'd like to split my post in two parts: An attempt at a description of this person's alignment in D&D terms and my reasons for that and the second part my view on the personality this person could have and some interesting fictious characters.

I think for a person to come to a decision like this they have to be very lawful and very wise (or extremely naive). I think this character would be LG when he takes the decision to start doing this. It would take an insane amount of character to not slowly slide towards evil while doing the evil acts needed for the greater good (the naive person would become bitter very quickly and become really evil). I think that anyone but the most strong-willed, stubborn person would slide towards evil while committing the gruesome acts. The rate of decline depends on the strength of the persons character.
I think that as long that the character sticks to his fight, he will remain lawful. He might slide away from that too when he starts to lose faith in his struggle.
Also, as long as he has some belief in his cause left, I think he won't become evil, just bitter and uncaring (neutral).

Note that this assessment is NOT based on D&D morality, only on the descriptions of the alignments.

On to the second part (some repeating here)
The person undertaking a gargantuan mission like this must have very much confidence in himself (or, again, be very naive). He will probably have some idea of what he is about to do, so it is very likely that he already appears harsh, mechanical and bitter in most situations. A person like this will need to be able to 'switch off' his attachment to very basic survival instincts. He will need to be able to not be moved by the grief he causes, or at least remain strong in his belief that the grief is less important than his goal.
He will need some way of letting the grief he causes slide past him, like being very bureaucratic, methodical and scientific (but other methods could be used).
Also, think of a very good reason why this person is doing this. What makes him tick? How does he survive between all that sorrow? What makes it that he doesn't crack up when he sees the umpteenth molested child? How come he still has all his marbles after the so-many-th death he's caused? Or isn't he entirely sane? Note that almost every convicted murderer has a psychological disorder.
How does he live with himself? How can he sleep at night?
Also consider that it is quite likely that every single person in the world hates this man, the good hate him for the terrible deeds he does, the evil hate him for his motives, the neutrals will probably hate him on general principle...
These are all questions you will need to answer before you can seriously consider a character like this (in a book or in an RPG).

Possible inspirations: Spawn comes to mind, a deformed man back from hell who tries to right everything that is wrong. But demonic gear and other influences make his methods rather, well, direct. Miko (from OotS) could also be an inspiration in a "even the gods disagreed" kind of way.

Good luck with your story, I hope it turns out well. You have a very interesting character running for you. If you come anywhere please tell us, I think I'll like this story very much!

[although]

Think of Ozymandias in Watchmen. His actions are certainly evil, but it's questionable whether he is.
That's just who this discussion reminded me of, too.

Spoiler for those who haven't read Watchmen, but don't mind us giving away the ending for the sake of this discussion:

Ozymandias is a genius, philanthropist, retired superhero, icon of enlightened progressive politics, and trusted friend and ally of most of the other main characters of the story. He also turns out to be the BBEG behind most of the story's horrific events, culminating in an apparent alien invasion that kills everyone in a large section of Manhattan.

Thing is, his actions were calculated to head off an impending nuclear war by uniting the human race against his fake extraterrestial menace...and at the end of the story, it seems that he's done exactly that. To (approximately) quote one of the heroes who figured out his plans just barely too late to stop him, as she helplessly watches the aftermath play out: "So we just failed to stop you from saving the world?"

And then she and the other good guys shut up and keep Ozy's secret. To expose him would undo none of the evil he's done, but would put the world back on a headlong path to Armageddon.

The thing I've always found interesting about this character: it is hard to unequivocally call him evil...but only because his analysis of world events is apparently perfect. Had he taken the same actions but made a mistake in his logic -- if his crimes had not prevented the end of the world, although he fully believed they would -- then he'd be undeniably evil. Most writers hedge their bets by having the messianic psycopath turn out to be deluded in thinking he can save the world from itself...with Watchmen, you have to decide what to think of him if he actually can.

My call in the end: Ozymandius is a despicable bastard. Anyone who tries to sling his style of moral calculus in real life, without the benefit of his apparently perfect foresight -- and many have tried -- is even more despicable. But in an RPG campaign, a villain like him would be a great twist: whether the good guys win or lose in the end, they're never sure which outcome would have been worse.

[squishycube]

I have a question about the Watchmen scenario:
Why do you think he's a bastard? I'd call him inhumane and psychotic, but in the end he is out to save the whole world. He is willing to make huge sacrifices, which aren't really personal sacrifices (although I think it is his own city?), but he's already made it: he has lots of money, fame, etc. Obviously a nuclear war could ruin that, so you could still accuse him of being selfish, but you can always do that if you want.

[Invisible Queen]

Thanks, squishycube, that's some heavy analysis. And encouraging. ^_^

I guess we can conclude that he starts out LG, but due to human weakness (which he has) he slides all the way to CE eventually.

Now what's the rest of the thead supposed to be about? >_>

[Leush]

Now I would say that he's evil in the same way that a doctor who performs essential surgery without anasthetic is evil. IE Not evil at all, possibly even good. I'd think Lawful Good.
So what if the doctor doesn't know acupuncture (spelling?)? Does not knowing a less painful way to help civilisation make him evil? No! It makes him a fool.


If there is an obvious better way to do good however, he will be evil. If he is upset by his actions enough and goes overboard and starts valueing his operations above his patients then he becomes evil.



The SRD says:


"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.



So, lets tick off the boxes:
Altruism: Check, he dislikes causing suffering but does it for the sake of others anyway.
Repect for life: I don't know, half and half "Being near death makes one feel alive"... Hmm...

Dignity: I'd say- that depends on his methods.
Sacrifice: Check, he sacrificed what, his whole potentially peaceful, puppy healing life for hurting others for their own good, that counts as one hack of a sacrifice in my books.


Now for evi:
Hurting: Check.
Oppression:Check
Killing:Check
Lack of compassion: Nope
Killing for Sport: Nope
Killing for the Sake of Eeevil: Nope. He kills for the sake of gooood.

So by RAW he is neutral tending towards evil. Although I must note, this gives the same results as for a paladin who clears the area of evil, puppy eating goblins by killing their men and ordering their women and children to relocate and never eat puppies again.

So no, not really evil.

[Woot Spitum]

Now what's the rest of the thead supposed to be about? >_>

Arguing about random stuff?:smallbiggrin:

[Lord Iames Osari]

Why CE? I can see the shift from G to E, but why the shift from L to C?

[Steward]

Personally, I think that the idea of needing evil to keep the world 'in balance' is an horrific philosophical perversion used by 'in-the-closet' fantasy villains to justify their behavior.

However, according to the alignment system, such a person has Good intentions but uses 'Evil methods'. I'd have to agree with the person who said Neutral bordering-on-Evil.

Hmm... no wonder a lot of people have problems with the Alignment system.

[Rhonstet]

Anyone who thinks the world needs to be saved from itself is typically a megalomaniac of the higest order.

I'd say Lawful Evil. Someone capable of rationalizing such an argument is definitely lawful: chaos doesn't tend to be introspective. And 'doing Evil' because it might lead to Good is still 'doing Evil'.

I keep thinking of the Operative from Serenity, too. That was a great example of a Lawful Evil character who sees the results of what his misplaced faith can wreak and begins to recant on the spot.

And I hated the character of Ozymandius. Two words: Butterfly Effect.

[SITB]

Isn't by deciding that he should do evil to the cause of the "greater good" is he sacrificing his goodness? I mean, by doing evil in the name of good mechanically the thing he sacrifices is his good aligment.

[Woot Spitum]

Personally, I think that the idea of needing evil to keep the world 'in balance' is an horrific philosophical perversion used by 'in-the-closet' fantasy villains to justify their behavior.

However, according to the alignment system, such a person has Good intentions but uses 'Evil methods'. I'd have to agree with the person who said Neutral bordering-on-Evil.

Hmm... no wonder a lot of people have problems with the Alignment system.

I think this is outside the alignment system. According to the D&D alignment system, your alignment is determined by your deeds, not your intentions. If you do evil, you are evil. Period. Justification for what your character has done is good roleplaying, but it has no real effect on game mechanics.

[Mewtarthio]

I think a few people may be misunderstanding things. As I read it, this guy isn't trying to take over the world and rule it under his enlightened iron fist, nor is he trying to restore any "balance" between good and evil. As I read it, he's just performing evil acts so that the Good guys will band together and form a unified alliance to stop him.

[Elliot Kane]

Alignment is about what you do, not how you justify it to yourself. Someone telling themselves they are doing evil in order to somehow bring about a greater good in the world is still, at the end of the day, doing evil. No amount of excuses will change the pain and suffering created by the evildoer one whit.

A masochistic LE person who tortures themselves with their own misdeeds is still LE - and quite possibly certifiable into the bargain.

[Invisible Queen]

Why CE? I can see the shift from G to E, but why the shift from L to C?
I dunno, it was just my instinctive feeling. He might find out he enjoys hurting people.

Meanwhile, have a taste of the story:

Regnar walks down the side of the road, and the grass turns yellow in his steps. He doesn't notice the damp grass crushed beneath his boots, he doesn't notice the soft summer breeze, nor the beautiful sunset ahead of him, with the clouds wearing colors indescribable, out of this world. He is a man on a Mission, and in the fullness of his might and glory, and his mind is aflame with dark joy. Behind him the darkness spreads, maybe a little faster than it should.

Regnar walks down the side of the road, with fast, way-beating steps, producing a loud "thump" with every leather-covered heel he puts to the ground, a sound echoed by his heart, thundering in his ears. He doesn't know where he's going. He knows only that no one will stand in his way.

When the night engulfs him, the shadows begin to move. Growing out of the cracks in the road, walking from the forest, flickering on and fading in and folding up they come Some with eyes smoldering red, some with weapons gleaming in the dim light of the sickle moon, some walking on four legs, some on more than four, some not walking at all, all of them silently following Regnar. Did he make them? Did he wake them? Did they come of their own free will, drawn to his power? He is not sure. They keep coming, endlessly, forming ranks and sending runners and flyers out in all directions and opening their minds to declare their servitude to him and share their sights with him.

He becomes aware - he feels like he's waking up as his consciousness rises to enfold the hundreds upon hundreds of eyes with which he can see, the richness of smells and sounds he could not have dreamed of, almost losing his body, his self - and he becomes aware of a stone castle perched high on the mountain ahead of him. He recognizes it as the place to which he has been drawn; either something in there or the castle itself is calling to him. It might be a trap, or an ally, but he suspects what he feels is nothing but the manifestation of omniscience. He knows, some part of him knows everything there ever was and everything that will happen, and so he has come here because it is where he should come. A moment that in the future will have historical importance is before him. He knows everything, but doesn't know how to explain what he knows in the words of men.

He gives the order - as easily as ordering his feet to move - to send half his force ahead and look through the castle. The night is as clear as day to him now, although he is not sure if he has done something to his eyes or seeing through the more sensitive eyes of his minions. But as bright as the night is, he can't seem to make out the exact shape of his followers. They seem vague, like sheets or scarecrows or mirages, twisting and bending as they move. Like a lens, his expectations focus, and shape the world. Within a moment, two, then eight, then twenty of the shadowy creatures appear more distinctly; tall, rigid shapes with rotund heads and bulging muscles and heavy clubs and body armor. They loom over Regnar, twice as tall as the man, and for a moment he is afraid.

The castle, old and overgrown, hardly more than a ruin, seethes with wildlife. Regnar's shadows kill everything that moves with little resistance, save a family of bears roaming the courtyard. The aggravated mother moves through the flimsy creatures like straw, but crumble in fear the moment Regnar walks in and looks at her. He walks slowly to her, speaking softly and reaching with his hand as if to scratch her head; the massive bear trembles, crouching low, her belly touching the ground, and makes no effort to attack or retreat. Regnar's hand strokes her muzzle, her brow, the side of her head, and he looks curiously into her eyes as he pulls, with his mind, and rips the life from her body.

'Fascinating', he says to himself. 'I can feel the vital energy, the life force, floating freely around me.' In an impulse that could be seen as artistic, he draws it into his hand and condenses it to physical form, a perfectly round crystal ball, barely an inch across, glowing with a fierce bright light from within. He looks at it, smiling absently, while the rest of the bears are sliced up around him. He pockets it without thinking, as if it were a coin, surprised to feel its heat against his leg.

'Such fine raw materials should not be wasted', he mumbles, frowning in concentration as he decides to make a slight, permanent change in the makeup of his corporeal vessel. Imperceptibly, the carcass twitches and rises, silently. All the dead animals; rats, spiders, beetles, ants, crows, owls, larks, deer, snakes, badgers, squirrels, bats, frogs, mutated plants, a baby chimera and a small pack of gryphons, killed in their sleep, rise, one by one. Their minds as blank as the shadow-spawned creatures, a strange darkness seem to cover them, even in the darkness of the night.

Regnar moves straight to the throne room, the moss and trees and wines in his path twisting and churning as if in pain, but not dying. The vegetables seem to lose their color, or grow dark red, and grow thinner, thinner but harder, and tighten their grip on the stone walls with audible creaks. Here and there an especially pitiful collapsed wall and broken roof mend themselves, as if the castle wanted to make itself better, to please its new occupant.

Regnar sits on the throne, a luxurious item over twenty feet tall and covered in purple gemstones and ivory, placed in the middle of a spacious, empty room. An apple tree grows by the south wall, which has crumbled entirely, providing a fine view over the valley below.

He sits on the throne, resting his head in his hand and his elbow on his knee, a gesture befitting a troubled king. Still welling out from every dark corner, the minions trod silently back and forth around him, but he pays them no mind. Instead he focuses the raw creative energy cascading out from him deep into the castle, probing its foundations, poking the roots of the mountain. The floods of dark-spawns trickle to a halt. The once shining white stone building trembles, and grows. Spires sprout from its rooftops, growing, twirling around each other, melting together, reaching up and out. Regnar, unmoving, starts a fire in the large fireplace before him, realizing he feels cold. The heat spreads through every corner of the vast and still growing castle. It gains the shape of a drop as the towers and spires grow inward, to avoid collapsing under their own weight, and strive ever upwards.

The castle turns into a dark tower, over a mile high, before the growth slows down to a crawl. To anyone within a thousand miles it would stand out, and appear to pierce the sky. The night is still young and Regnar has not a thought of sleeping. 'Now what am I going to do', he asks a servant he's thought to create for himself. It doesn't react, no mind of its own, that will take some work. He leans back on his throne and thinks, and a shadow appears high above him.

Straight above the peak of the tower, the stars begin to dim. The sky is bleeding, although no one could tell in the darkness. Simultaneously, the earth around the tower smolders and bleeds and withers, the grass turning to ash and the earth to dead, red dust; the ground becomes dry and lined with cracks. The destruction spreads slowly, almost deliberately, less than an inch per hour.

Regnar spends the night making, by hand, some trusted lieutenants; powerful creatures capable of taking initiatives and seeking pleasure, but not to speak or raise a hand against him. He loses himself in the craft, shaping and reshaping the bodies out of clay to make them just right. He's still an artist at heart. And as long as he's working he doesn't feel lonely.

'Not for long', he says, unconsciously, as he molds a wooden staff for one of his wizards. 'It's going to change. I'm going to change everything.'

Making his own companion didn't work, even though he'd made her with such care - she was his masterpiece, and she had loved him of her own free will, but in the end they did not know each other well enough. Making his own world was not enough. It seemed so fake, so contrived. Ending his life always seemed like a bad idea, even if he could manage it. If he could not make a good life for himself here, with the infinite power at his disposal, how would he make it anywhere else? Razing the entire universe, while possible, would probably be a cataclysmically bad idea. He knew he'd just have to make it all over again, and his large-scale creations just didn't work.

So it had come to this. His plan vague, but grand. Nothing that could go wrong. Lots and lots of things to occupy his mind. Now, Regnar thinks, I'm done creating. Time to destroy.

Behind his delusions of morality, of the importance of doing good, he thinks, it feels really good to embrace the dark side. Just get lost in the pure unholy joy of death and decay. It's so easy. Yet satisfying. He's had all that power for so long and only now realized how good it feels to actually, seriously use it.

I'm doing good, though, he reminds himself. Because I'm doing evil, people have to fight it, fight me, and in the battle feel righteous, feel good, feel alive.

When the sun rises, the growing field of corruption reaches the outskirts of a nearby village. 'And so it begins', Regnar declares, watching from high above. As a congregation of farmers armed with axes and pitchfork cautiously approach a squad of shadows waiting at the edge of the red earth, Regnar feels a twinge of guilt. He allows the humans to win the scuffle with hardly a scratch between them.

Returning to his castle, he hears the villagers palaver in shaken, scared voices and the hammering, grinding, trampling sounds of preparation for war. With an effort, he closes his heart to their fear. For hours he sits on his throne, waiting, playing chess with one of the higher minions, while the trees and rocks still standing in his land grow twisted, turning into horrifying, painful shapes.

They come in the dark, bearing torches and crude cutting weapons. Twenty men, brave for the sake of their wives and children, march to the castle, the resolution burning in their gaze strengthened by bottles of spirits they carry with them. They do not drink enough to be foolish, only occasionally, secretly, stealing a sip with the guilty conscience of those who knows they shouldn't drink, only enough to uphold their strength and dull their fear.

They walk unhindered into the nightmarish, unearthly castle; their nerves tense to the point of breaking, but never released. No sound, no movement, no threat ever appears to them as they find their way to the throne room.

There, Regnar awaits them clad in light. He appears at least twelve feet tall, with golden hair flowing over his shoulders, whitest robes concealing his figure and a radiant smile on his lips. The light seems to come from within him, and though he shines almost like the sun the light seems unable to penetrate the shadows of the room, as if bending towards him. The men fall to their knees, overcome with inexplicable, paralyzing reverence, unable to take their eyes from him.

He raises a hand, and one of the men fall down without a sound, dead without a moment of pain. Regnar crosses his arms and waits for the corpse to rise again, and face its former brothers with a hungry grin. Two of them run away in complete and utter panic, doing nothing for the morale of the rest.

Regnar raises his other hand, disintegrating causing another man to clutch his chest. His face twists in pain, but before he can utter a scream he bursts into a fine mist of blood.

'This is the least of what I can do to you', Regnar says, with a low, grinding, inhuman voice. 'You have three days to abandon your village. Then I will burn it. Now leave.'

He turns his back to them, and the despair lifts. One by one they stand up and walk away, each after staring at Regnar's back, gaping, trying to make an argument. Long after Regnar is left alone, the words 'This will not go unpunished' hang in the air.

On the third day, he burns the village as promised, although more than half of the houses are already crumbled and dead, on the red ground. No living creature remains, much to his relief.

At dawn the day after next, the first heroes arrive.

[Neo]

He would be Lawful Evil, as the D&D alignment system is objective rather than perspective, ie. its based on what the majority see as evil rather than what your character sees as evil.

The closest psychological profile would be a sociopath, he knows what he does is evil, he just doesn't care.

For a sidenote, Psychopaths have no capacity to recognise good or evil, they just do whatever they think about at the time. Kinda like Chaotic Neutral.

[Woot Spitum]

Definately chaotic evil. He has become so consumed by his goal that he no longer cares about what he has to do to accomplish it. He relents at one point, simply because he can, then crushes his foes. He lets some live simply because they are not a threat, a lawful character would have tied up that loose end. He has lost sight of the individuals in favor of his more abstract, presonal goals. Kinda Stalinesque, in that he doesn't care how many people have to die to achieve his goal, as long as the goal is achieved.

[The_Snark]

As written, he comes across as pretty evil, and fairly insane to boot; his original goal seems to have become sort of a justification at that point. I can see how you might type him as Chaotic Evil.

[Eighth_Seraph]

Definately chaotic evil. He has become so consumed by his goal that he no longer cares about what he has to do to accomplish it. He relents at one point, simply because he can, then crushes his foes. He lets some live simply because they are not a threat, a lawful character would have tied up that loose end. He has lost sight of the individuals in favor of his more abstract, presonal goals. Kinda Stalinesque, in that he doesn't care how many people have to die to achieve his goal, as long as the goal is achieved.
No, a Chaotic Evil person would have utterly destroyed all of those men, with the kind of power this guy is holding. He is as of right now, still teetering between Neutral and Evil, but he is either True Neutral or Neutral Evil, since he is not commanding legions of sentient creatures by virtue of authority, but unthinking creatures by virtue of their servitude. The reason that he is still on the brink is that every action he takes which he knows will cause others such sever pain is nearly, but not quite, counterbalanced by the "Take on for the team" thinking that has gotten him this far. Thus he is in the process of crossing the blurred line between Neutral and Evil, but can still be called back, unlikely as it may be.


Also, I really like the writing style, Queen, it holds alot of potential.

[TSGames]

Specifically, through a series of philosophical arguments, our hero realizes that the world needs evil to function at its best. An evil force bands people together, keeps them on their toes, advances the development of technology; and in addition it gives people something to fight, to focus their negative energy on - to keep them from hurting each other - and in the battle, in being close to death, people feel alive.

Hiring an army and invading surrounding countries, or whichever way he decides to do evil things, have a lot of undeniably good results in a greater perspective.

He does this even though it causes his deep personal pain to hurt people; and such a sacrifice for the greater good leads me to believe he's lawful good.

But he causes a lot of damage to innocent people. That's clearly some form of evil.

Or maybe he's true neutral, acting as a balancing force between good and evil.

So what is he?
It seems to me he is choosing with full volition to be evil and cause pain and suffering. So what if he regrets it?

Maybe I have to sacrifice 12 virgins every month to prevent the imminent destruction of a town, but I regret having to do it. WTF??? like that justifies anything. Agreeing to willingly cause pain and suffering for a conceived notion of the greater good, and even if it is for the greater absolute good is still evil. It's never neutral to cause pain and suffering on innocents for any reason.

In your description to admit the existence of good and evil as tangible forces in your universe, and your character agrees to be evil for a greater good. I don't see any issue, he's evil by choice.

[ExHunterEmerald]

I'd say that only those in the future can judge, but I live in a country run by the political equivalent of a monkey with a revolver. One plate of judgment with a side of condemnation, please.


At any rate, I like to look at the "Evil for the greater good" thing as valid--the actions are still evil, but they are strictly necessary for the greater good, with no excuse-making on the parts of those involved.
Good example: Knights of the Old Republic.

[Invisible Queen]

Definately chaotic evil. He has become so consumed by his goal that he no longer cares about what he has to do to accomplish it. He relents at one point, simply because he can, then crushes his foes. He lets some live simply because they are not a threat, a lawful character would have tied up that loose end. He has lost sight of the individuals in favor of his more abstract, presonal goals. Kinda Stalinesque, in that he doesn't care how many people have to die to achieve his goal, as long as the goal is achieved.
I imagine he lets them live so that they can go and tell everyone about him. He only kills those he kills to illustrate his power; there is actually nothing on this planet that poses a threat to him.

But it's absolutely true that he doesn't care about individuals.


Also, I really like the writing style, Queen, it holds alot of potential.
Thanks. ^_^

[Misplaced_Jedi]

Generally I try to avoid alignment arguments, but I'd just like to start by saying that I'm very impressed at how genuinely philosophical and respectful I have found this thread to be. Cookies for all.

Now, not that I disagree with the Greater Good idea per se, but it seems to me that the personal goodness of the individual (which is what is under question here) might be suspect. They are acting in a way that is most certainly not good in and of itself, but are doing it with the intention of improving the worldly scale of good and evil. With the GG philosophy I think it's possible for them to achieve their goals, but the personal sacrifice portion of Good doesn't really apply here. Their personal sacrifice is not purely holy, and while it does improve the conditions for the majority it does so through evil means. In addition, if one chooses to include the BoED for perspective, the universal balance will tilt towards evil, as has been stated. So on the planar level (material world) the balance of power may shift (temporarily) in favor of good, but the total ramification still bends towards evil due to the disgrace of the individual involved.

[Ceska]

To answer the original question, knowing that most species on the planet would be better off without humans doesn't mean it is desireable to wipe out humanity.

Personally, I don't believe in good or evil at all. I always say, an action is good for the one who does, or at least the best he can make out in the situation, and evil for another one. Doing something for others is doing something for you and altruism is a joke. Try doing good and being ignored over it. Not a "and you damn should do that" but a "was there anyone?" try that, you sure won't do it for long without any kind of reward.

[Invisible Queen]

I do that all the time; maybe I'm just Good. :)

[Roderick_BR]

According to D&D's aligment system, the person would be Lawful Evil. Think Doctor Doom from Fantastic Four. He'll do anything "for his people", including slaughtering anyone that just happens to be in the way? That's how dictators usually work.

[Steward]

First of all, I really enjoyed the except. Is that from a story or from a campaign?


. As I read it, he's just performing evil acts so that the Good guys will band together and form a unified alliance to stop him.

Thanks for the clarification. I understand it now. Let me revise my statement:

Personally, I think the idea of needing Evil in order to entertain heroes [at the expense of the weak commoners that heroes are supposed to defend, no less] is a horrific philosophical perversion used by 'in-the-closet' fantasy villains to justify their own cruelty. That's kind of like a man who goes around mutilating animals to keep veterinarians in business. He doesn't need to enjoy it but it's still absolutely vile.


Try doing good and being ignored over it.

If no-one could stand doing that, then it would be pretty hard for a lot of charities [the ones that don't publicize your name or send you a plaque] to survive. Still, I agree with you that being ignored can really kill altruism but I disagree that such a situation is intolerable to everyone.



Anyone who thinks the world needs to be saved from itself is typically a megalomaniac of the highest order.


Agreed. They're also the same people who are never afraid of being wrong, and spend countless hours rationalizing their behavior and trying to convince themselves that they're still at least good even if they aren't really Good anymore...

[Lord Iames Osari]

They're also the same people who are never afraid of being wrong, and spend countless hours rationalizing their behavior and trying to convince themselves that they're still at least good even if they aren't really Good anymore...

That statement doesn't make sense. If they're never afraid of being wrong, why would they need to be spending those countless hours of rationalization and convincing? They'd have to have doubts that they are trying to assuage.

[Weezer]

I think he is True Neutral, he is working for the Balance between good and evil and not for the cause of evil or for himself

[Steward]

That statement doesn't make sense. If they're never afraid of being wrong, why would they need to be spending those countless hours of rationalization and convincing? They'd have to have doubts that they are trying to assuage.

They spend countless hours rationalizing their behavior in order to prevent themselves from fearing that they're wrong. They're the kinds of people are always having mental conversations along the lines of:

"I am a good person. Good people don't kill helpless people. But I just melted those orphans with a fireball. But that's not a mistake because...uh... now the government will see that the orphanage got burned down and they might even build a newer, better one! Yeah, that's the ticket. The orphans sacrificed themsleves for the greater good, after all. They're probably dancing with angels in the Celestial Realms by now! Ha ha! It was all part of my grand plan all along! God, I'm so smart!"

[Lord Iames Osari]

But for them to have that kind of conversation with themselves, they have to be afraid that they're wrong in the first place.

[Deus Mortus]

I recently watched the Saw films and they might be a good inspiration for this guy, some info if you haven't seen the movie:

The guy has been diagnosed with cancer and seeing death in the eyes has made life much more valuable to him, so now he seeks out people who hardly live at all and puts them in deathtraps which they can survive if they are willing to hurt themselves or sometimes others in the process to come out of it alive. He's a psycho that doesn't care about his victims, but he thinks he does this for the greater good, so go watch those movies if you can stand the rather disproportionate gore

[Iudex Fatarum]

I can't help but think of Leto II from Dune, especialy in book 4 where he sets himself up as an enemy for the universe so as to create a unified world with peace. he is portrayed as neutral or good. Then I think of batman begins, where Ras Al Gul tries to destroy Gothom City to create a newer better civilization.
I personaly tend to be very judgement oriented so I would say evil but honestly I would say CN to CE but much more chaotic than anything

[Steward]

But for them to have that kind of conversation with themselves, they have to be afraid that they're wrong in the first place.

Those kinds of conversations preclude the possibility of being wrong, since they eliminate all doubt. So long as the person in question can continue to hold mental conversations like that, they have no reason to ever doubt themselves. I'm not saying that they're automatically immune to the idea of fearing mistakes, but that they are instead constantly inventing excuses that prevent them from ever seeing that they may ever be wrong about any of their decisions. It's like an extreme form of self-delusion.


Then I think of batman begins, where Ras Al Gul tries to destroy Gothom City to create a newer better civilization.

I remember that movie. I still think that the League of Shadows was an evil organization, though. They were trying to wipe out an entire city full of people, and in the most brutal way they could possibly devise. Maybe Ra's told himself that it was only for the greater good but I thought that he definitely enjoys the idea of controlling the rise and fall of empires much more than a truly compassionate and altruistic person could.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Those kinds of conversations preclude the possibility of being wrong, since they eliminate all doubt. So long as the person in question can continue to hold mental conversations like that, they have no reason to ever doubt themselves. I'm not saying that they're automatically immune to the idea of fearing mistakes, but that they are instead constantly inventing excuses that prevent them from ever seeing that they may ever be wrong about any of their decisions. It's like an extreme form of self-delusion.

I disagree. Those kinds of conversations allow a person to ignore his fears that they are wrong, but they must come about as a result of those fears.

Let me illustrate:


Person A values good things, wants to do good things, and wants to believe that he is a good person.
Person A performs an act that, according to his (good) values, is an evil (wrong) act.
Person A becomes afraid that he may have done something evil/wrong.
Person A attempts to rationalize his evil/wrong act through a self conversation such as the one you described.
Person A, if he succeeds, convinces himself that his action was in fact an acceptable one, and proceeds to ignore his doubts.But the whole thing comes about because he has and feels those doubts in the first place.

[MeklorIlavator]

Actually, I would agree with the neutral, bordering on evil group. In a world I am creating, there is a race that does something similar. They cause wars, ones where the "good" side doesn't win, so that good will be furthered.

For instance, the cause a war amoung two countries, and the good side loses, but this is so greater powers take notice of the country and make moves to hamper it. If they had not done this, the evil country would have grown in power slowly, until it actually might have been on par with the good powers. In thier way, they are preparing the world.

They aren't all neutral, only a majority are so that even thought their are extremes, the general policy is neutral.

[Ephraim]

Controlled Evil for the greater good? Sounds Lawful Evil to me. Especially if the character spends that much time rationalizing his position.

Bear in mind, this is from a D&D perspective, where Evil is Evil.

This sounds pretty accurate to me. The good/evil axis, as I understand it, concerns the personal morality of the character. The character that you have described is, by no means, acting in a personally good or neutral manner. He is actively engaged in evil pursuits.

The lawful/chaotic axis, on the other hand, concerns ethics. This character is pursuing a greater goal than the immediate results of his behaviour suggests. Furthermore, he is probably consistent and pursues evil in a structured, ethical way. (If it causes him personal pain to be evil, he probably has a strict code of ethics that prevents him from committing atrocities that he couldn't live with.)

The mentality he seems to have is that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. What makes him evil is that he's not actually sacrificing for the good of the whole. He's suffering, in his way, but he's really sacrificing others (presumably innocents) to achieve his goals, however noble those goals may be. On the other hand, this character is likely to be very precise in the execution of his evil deeds. He probably won't cause any more suffering than is absolutely necessary.

For completeness, contrast this position to Chaotic Good, which shares the mentality of the ends justifying the means. Chaotic Good actively pursues good with no regard for ethics, but with a strong regard for morality -- perhaps stronger than any other alignment. A CG character could not justify to himself intentionally harming an innocent to achieve his ends. Unlike the LE character I was describing before, however, the CG character is more likely to shrug off collateral damage, even if innocents are harmed because of a mistake he made.

[Monkeyking]

I always felt that the term good and evil was best represented by the populace. If a normal person happened to see you do an act and deemed it evil than it was. If they thought it was good then it was. Justification is part of the evil side of things. If you need to justify your actions for them to be seen as good then I always felt that you missed the mark and what you did was still evil. If you perform an act and have no need to justify it to make it look good then it was a good act.

The rest of it is up to everyone else to decipher, lawful, chaotic.....

either way that was my two cents. disassemble as you please.

[TheOOB]

Two questions that will determine if your are evil

1) Are you, generally speaking, willing to harm(in any capacity) an innocent(that is someone you don't personally know well who as far as you know has done nothing wrong) for personal gain(any type of gain, not just money)?

2) If a dark cleric cast unholy blight on you, would you take no damage?

If you awnsered "yes" to either of these questions you are most likely evil. Remember that how magic affects you determines your alignment, not the other way around, at least in a D&D standpoint.

[DeathQuaker]

When I stop and think about the type of person exampled--one willing to conquer and rule with an iron fist to preserve the peace of the people and/or bring the survivors to the best of their potential... I think of a number of real-life people who have gone down in history as the vilest, most evil dictators, often the causers of nasty nasty wars which did nothing to bring anyone any "good" regardless of how they may consider their intentions. I will not mention their names to avoid political discussion, but to yourself, stop and think about it. You're describing someone who if you bring it out of the realm of hypothetical you would quite likely label as evil.

Now, jumping safely back to an alignment question, based on the rules of D&D--the rules state:



"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

Quite simply, person the OP described is hurting, oppressing, and killing others. So yeah, by the definition provided, evil. Is it simplistic? Yes. But we're in a game forum, and the rules of the game leave things pretty broad on purpose.

Also of note (the emphasis below is mine):



A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm) are the epitome of lawful evil.

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment) because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

I would say that the last descriptive paragraph about "committing themselves to evil with a zeal..." doesn't quite fit, but the rest of it, pretty much to a T.

[Invisible Queen]

But for them to have that kind of conversation with themselves, they have to be afraid that they're wrong in the first place.
It sounds like you'd have to be wrong in order to ever doubt that you are right. That can't be what you mean, right? :smallfrown:

Now speaking of real life evil dictators, naturally Hitler spring to mind. Of course what he did was evil, he killed like 15 million people and so on. But it did lead to jews and black people becoming more accepted in a society which before that barely, if at all, acknowledged their humanity. Not to mention untold numbers of unimaginable acts of bravery and heroics in the face of evil. And the book "Maus". . .

I dare say the world is a better place because it suffered through world war 2.

Not that it has any bearing on our character's alignment, which as we already concluded, starts out LE and goes down a slippery slope because ultimate power corrupts ultimately, ending up at CE if he survives long enough.

[Saph]

Anyone who thinks the world needs to be saved from itself is typically a megalomaniac of the higest order.

Definitely agreed. Here's a hint: when someone you know starts using phrases like "save the world from itself" or "become a monster to save the world", start running.


I'd say Lawful Evil.

Agreed. Squishycube had a good point too, though - it's quite possible he'll slide away from Lawful over time to Neutral or Chaotic Evil, given the hideously corrupting effects of what he's doing.

Hope there are some people around to stop this guy . . .

- Saph

[Caewil]

Meh, the D&D alignment system never worked for me. I usually do away with it. (along with most forms of magic, psionics FTW)

[squishycube]

Which is why I didn't answer the question from within the D&D morality :smile:

I like what you are doing so far Queen!

In my view, the slip away from lawful is caused by loss of faith in his ideals. His methodical and abstract way of thinking is necessary only to justify his actions. Once he starts becoming bitter and becomes more and more evil, the methodical side will go with it.

[daggaz]

Lets simplify this one:


The ends do not necessarily justify the means. (In fact, they rarely do).

Regardless of your intentions, in the real world, you are evil, man. In DnD, NullAshton hit it on the head, you are true neutral.

[squishycube]

In the real world, there is no such thing as absolute alignment (note that in my earlier post, in the 'real personality' part, I didn't mention good and evil). The debate between the ends justify the means and the ends don't justify the means is an endless one, it is one that cannot be won, only lost.

I already find it annoying that people make such bold statements about this person's morality within the D&D morality (because that is so blindingly obvious), but they are right so I remain silent. But you can't make such bold statements about real world morality. Well you can, but they will never be true except within one set of values.

D&D morality on the other hand is based on what you do (has has been mentioned several times already) and it is absolute, therefore in the D&D morality this person would be evil.

[Steward]

Those kinds of conversations allow a person to ignore his fears that they are wrong, but they must come about as a result of those fears.

I understand your point, but I'm not sure if you're getting what I'm trying to say.

Let's say we have a Paladin named.... Bob. Bob has the Immunity to Fear class ability and is utterly sure that everything he does is for the greater good. He goes to a town and finds out that all of the buildings are in disrepair, crime is rampant everywhere, and the government is corrupt. He decides that the entire town is completely overrun by evil and sets it on fire, killing and displacing hundreds of people. Somewhere in the back of his mind, he remembers that his god has a rule against murder. But Bob realizes that yes, that rule exists, but it doesn't matter since if he hadn't done what he did then those people would have suffered and died anyway, and besides, he didn't actually kill them; all he did was set a few buildings on fire.

At no point does Bob ever in danger of believing his actions to be a mistake. His megalomania has allowed him to create a complex set of justifications for all of the things that he knows to be against God and he will never have anyone dare to challenge his beliefs.


But it did lead to jews and black people becoming more accepted in a society which before that barely, if at all,

What!?


Not to mention untold numbers of unimaginable acts of bravery and heroics in the face of evil.

And this is... good? When did the lives of millions become nothing more than entertainment for heroes?

[Murongo]

My friend has a character whose last remaining relative (his brother) is being held captive by a demon lord, who demands my friend's character (a formerly good cleric) to slaughter thousands of people in order to have his brother freed (or have his soul tortured for eternity blah blah blah). The rest of his family was butchered at one point, including his wife and 14 children (hes a dwarf, don't ask), so hes desperate to get his brother back. Despite the fact that its not all his fault- what hes doing is evil. Thus, he is evil.

The only reason hes allowed in the group still is that my character is a self-serving arrogant prick and the other members are a vengeance-at-all-costs kinda guy and a barbarian who just likes the rush of fighting.

Its a very neutral/evil leaning party to say the least.

[Wizzardman]

I'd say evil. The ends don't justify the means.

Keep in mind, though, sometimes there is a difference between what's good and what's the right thing to do. If your character believes that this action will produce more good than evil, then he certainly can believe that his action is the right thing to do. But that doesn't make such actions good actions, and that doesn't make him a good person. Does it matter? If its still the right thing to do, shouldn't he do it anyway? After all, someone has to be evil--at least this way, he can control how much evil there is in the world, and make sure that everyone remembers that evil exists.

[TSGames]

(BIG NONO, TALKING ABOUT WW II)
*waits for thread implosion*

[Beleriphon]

But does that evil action make the PERSON evil?

Think of Ozymandias in Watchmen. His actions are certainly evil, but it's questionable whether he is.

In D&D terms he'd be lawful evil. As mentioned with King Kaius from Eberron bit, or Cardinal Krozan of the same setting.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Several people have said that the ends don't justify the means. As an absolute statement, I disagree. There are many situations in which the ends justify the means... but there is a point where the ends cease to justify the means used to produce them.

[Beleriphon]

Several people have said that the ends don't justify the means. As an absolute statement, I disagree. There are many situations in which the ends justify the means... but there is a point where the ends cease to justify the means used to produce them.

You can justify the means all you want, it doesn't make you good in D&D. The means may even be necessary, but they can still be evil. Torture of an innocent is evil. Torturing an innocent to get information to stop a cult bent on world destruction is still evil, even if you stop the world destroying cult. If this is your primary method of extracting information or achieving your ends then you are also evil. D&D really is that simple.

Cardinal Krozan is a big fan of the "you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette" philosophy. He's even a high ranking member of a good church. Why is he evil, because he'll do whatever it takes to further his church's goals, and more importantly his own goals. Torture, murder, lies, black mail? All part of the regular routine for Krozan. That is what makes him evil, even though he's thoroughly convinced he's doing the right thing and could very well be doing the right thing. But all of that is immaterial to D&D since what he's done is Evil.

[Whamme]

In Dragonlance, in the Cataclysm, the gods of good destroyed an entire city to teach a lesson.

If they can do that and still remain their world's epitome of good, then so can a mortal.

[Beleriphon]

In Dragonlance, in the Cataclysm, the gods of good destroyed an entire city to teach a lesson.

If they can do that and still remain their world's epitome of good, then so can a mortal.

So Dragonlance has a wonky view of what's good, that proves very little in terms of what a character can achieve. To continue with Dragonlance if Caramon had done the same thing would still call him good?

I think you're also missing the point entirely. The gods may remain good, but what they did was still Evil according to D&D alignment. The gods don't determine alignment, the idea is that alignments are a universal truth. One Evil act doesn't force and alignment change, but consistently Evil acts would clearly show a character as Evil.

[Melrob]

Interesting arguments, and for the most part I would pitch in evil as, has been quoted mahy times above - the ends justify the means.

I'm quite intrigued with this topic though as it's something I've been personally mulling over for a few months now. Sorry if this post is gonna be long =P but I feel I can't help myself here ....

One of my characters, through instances of knowledge and experience, is slowly losing his grasp of what is right and what is wrong. He is about to embark, as an 18th level arcane caster, into the dark and unretreatable world of lichdom...and his reasons for doing so are rather sound. 'Sound', you ask? Let's look at the facts to understand why a previously neutral good character from level 1, played over the course of 8 years, would seemingly admit defeat and turn into the very thing he has so often in the past caste himself against.

1.) In our world and campaign, it has become known to a certain few characters and major NPC's that the world is really biding it's time against the utter chaos that birthed it. This chaos, steeped in the history of the cult of the black flame, temple of elemental evil, Iuz and a host of other sources is merely being held from devouring our world via enormous efforts of heroes throughout history who have, through one way or another...thwarted those who would release the creator of gods/destroyer of reality. This ending is inescapable. It is only a matter of time, and my mage...lets call him 'Sam'...has seen very clearly how events in his lifetime have been manipulated in our campaign by cultists flying very different standards...but ultimately giving strength to Iuz the Deciever who would see this chaos released.

2.) Sam has also been the unfortunate sacrifice made to enter the Demon God's Fane on the behest of Lathander, and aid his party in destroying it. Unfortunately this 'sacrifice' entailed giving his soul to the Demon God (yet another aspect of Iuz, Thariz Dun...one of many names) and as such, upon death, will become a plaything in hell.

So, here we have a character who, at heart, has been a good man and has undoubetdly helped save the lives of thousands of innocents throughout our campaigns. But not only does he have the intimate knowledge that really...it's only a matter of time before chaos wins, he also has to deal with the fact that when he does pass from this world: he has no heavenly home to look forward to. I try to imagine (as an atheist) how one would view life if gods were a definite aspect of the universe and how most people would look forward to seeing their family, friends and lost ones again in the heavens. And then I tihnk of Sam...

Things are grim. He has, but his lifetime to enjoy, and everything that he knows and has suffered has been from the doing of good. He's intelligent obviously, and wise, however everyone has a finite barrier against madness and this man's has been pressed to far.

Lichdom then seems the best answer. You have a few millenia to continue as a conscious being and that consciousness will not be suffering in hell. It will be studying, creating, probably doing a bad thing here or there but inevitably it will also be struggling against the chaos...delaying the two inevitables.

and here is the crux and relevance -

Yes...he will continue to fight against the crawling chaos (as what is a world that does not exist?) and that 'ultimately' is a good and noble thing in and of itself...but his methods will be more selfish, extreme. His restraint, forgiveness and tolerance will be less tempered. He will be evil and will delight in the suffering of those mortals who would suffer the worlds end...or any other who would stand in his way pursuing these cultists.

However, I have no delusions that he will become anything other than bitter evil...regardless of what he is fighting against. The ends do not justify the means!

[elliott20]

I think it all depends on what kind of evil you're talking about and in what context.

[Iudex Fatarum]

I have apritiated reading this thread, it has been interesting to read and i have liked the respect of the people involved. This issue I seem to think comes down to the question, "Do the ends justify the means?" especialy in this context. This question will never be answered for everyone the same way, for even though I personaly belive that good and evil are absolute otherd do not and will not. I recently bought NeverWinter Nights and it actualy has this exact question, a person to become sophisticated and good form of a lich (i don't understand it completely) sacrificed all the children in the village and then tried to bring them back to life. He believed he was justified. Also those who are LN or LE tend to have the delusion that they are good, for the reguard justice as good. So for example Draco who used the death sentence for most crimes had the polocy that death was the proper sentence for small crimes and nothing worse existed.

[Melrob]

Yeah, as much as I like the necromanticism of a good lich, in our campaign the act of becoming a lich involves the sacrifice of a sentient being amongst everything else...and the ongoing process of decay and exposure to negative energy ensure any who would chose that particular path to immortality is bound to become corrupt.