PDA

View Full Version : Rise from Evil?



jedipotter
2014-09-17, 02:31 PM
Can a evil character rise from evil and become good the same way a good character can fall from good and become evil?

Important: I'm not talking about making the choice[/B to stop being evil and to be good, I'm talking about the more ''unknowing'' and ''accidental'' type of alignment movement.

It's a classic in a lot of fiction, and tons of RPGs, that good people can [B]fall. The D&D Paladin is a classic example. Countless Paladins have fallen from good in countless games over the years.

Important: Keep in mind were not talking about choosing to change alignments, were talking about where the character thinks they are doing the ''right'' thing...until they get judges and fall.

For example: Bad guy, after loosing the fight, lights the town hall full of innocents on fire and then runs off. The bad guy expects the good guy of staying to help with the fire. The good guy does not agree and runs after the bad guy and kills him. And all the innocents die in the fire. The character is all happy thinking that the bad guy can never do bad stuff again and he saved the town. But the ''Cosmic Alignment'' does not agree: he should have saved the people and could have caught up to the bad guy later. So the good guy falls from Good.

So does this happen to Evil? Are there acts that are so good that a evil character would rise from evil and be Good? If so, what are they?

draken50
2014-09-17, 03:01 PM
I would say no. I don't believe a character just becomes good unless your going entirely by utilitarian ethics. A single action isn't really going to make the difference. I mean you could have a bad guy willing to slaughter an entire race of people, who also happened to love dogs and would do anything to protect a puppy. If that guy is orchestrating genocide I don't care how many puppies he saves, he's still evil.

The other thing is, that comparing to good character falling is still going to depend on how the person views the fall as working. In this case the actions required of the player imply that having evil thoughts doesn't make you evil so much as acting on them. Ultimately, though you could have an evil, perhaps revenge driven character exact their revenge and retire, behaving ultimately as a neutral person. For them to really be neutral though I would expect that the character would have to consciously work to shift there mindset to that of the neutral alignment, putting their quest for revenge behind them and striving to return to a normal life.

Again though, while that isn't necessary the character looking for redemption it does require a conscious change of mindset, an evil character who starts behaving in a good manner in protection of the Innocent at some point would have that moment of clarity that they are not acting as they used to and would probably choose whether to try to fit the new mindset they find, or decide that they are the same person they always were. If they die before that moment of clarity, well... then you have some interesting drama, but I feel that unknowingly treading the path of change is not the same.

Good topic though, nice food for thought.

DontEatRawHagis
2014-09-17, 03:18 PM
Evil Character realizes too late that in fulfilling his plan he actually made the world a better place and it really wasn't all that evil.

I.E. That dam deserves to be destroyed. Destroys it not only stopping an uprising of evil mages in the town below but also revealing the long lost king who was cursed to be asleep at the bottom of the lake for all time.

Tarlek Flamehai
2014-09-17, 03:24 PM
The Grinch. Or Heel-Face Turn

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

SiuiS
2014-09-17, 03:52 PM
Yes, although it's usually much slower and made of smaller increments. A villain has someone he cares about, has a situation that makes him empathize with someone he doesn't care about, and wonders. Some minor soul searching leads to recognizing how much of a jerk his fellows are, and he betters himself.

He may turn good, or he may become Gentleman Evil.

Segev
2014-09-17, 04:03 PM
Much like the good character falling, the evil character "rising" would have to be unaware of what was happening. He would, much like the good character, probably excuse many of his actions. It's important to realize that an evil character who is not a hypocrite about it likely doesn't think he's evil so much as strong. Or clever, or cunning, or realistic. He will view things in terms of strength and weakness rather than evil and good. Foolishness and clarity rather than good and evil.

When he performs the first acts of good that begin his slide up the slippery slope, they have practical reasons or are mere whims. He has no need to justify himself; he wanted to do it, so he did. If he does feel the need to justify whatever resources he expended on his kind deeds, it usually is because his burgeoning morality pet is integral, to some extent, to his plans. Keeping it happy/safe/healthy is, he thinks, just easier than treating it callously or cruelly and trying to force it to stay anyway.

To become good, he'll find himself with more and more of these situations where the well-being and happiness of others is important to him. He may or may not feel a need to justify it, but if he does, he will say it is to preserve his allies, or his investments, or to foment trust he can later exploit.

For the good guy falling to villainy, the "final step" is usually that "What have I done!?" moment. He's gone too far (or was about to), and he realizes with sudden clarity that he is the monster.

For the bad guy rising unintentionally to heroism, it will be the moment when he has everything he supposedly was scheming for, and all he has to do is back-stab, sacrifice, or (in extreme cases) even just let down one of his supposed pawns. And he finds himself hesitant. Looking for alternatives. Even looking for excuses not to. And that's when he realizes...they're more important to him than his goals. (Despicable Me is a recent, well-done example.)

There are plenty of variations - it could be the Grinch moment, when he realizes that seeing all these people happy makes him happy. He realizes that he's celebrating with people genuinely happy for him, and that he LIKES this feeling of fellowship (rather than the expected feeling of selfish achievement together with others enjoying a similar emotion). It could be that he has a moment of enlightened rationalism where he realizes that all his "good but for not-weak reasons" choices - the pragmatic reasons behind heroic rather than expedient deeds - have taught him that "good" is based on reason, after all, and is not the weakness he once thought. Or he might forever deny that he does things for "good" reasons, much as the fallen hero may deny that his actions are evil because his goal is justified, and it thus justifies his actions.

But that's how it happens: they're put in a situation to care about others, possibly because they value them for their own plans at first and get to know them, or possibly because their villain-with-good-PR routine starts to make them into a genuine hero who enjoys helping others because it turns out it feels good. Or a number of other ways. But those are some examples.

draken50
2014-09-17, 04:17 PM
See the thing is though, doing good deeds for evil reasons is still evil. Starting a soup kitchen isn't a Good act when the motivation is to use it to have easy access to homeless people for human sacrifice.

I suppose you can have the good guy who thinks he's a bad guy kind of thing, but I just don't know about having a D&D capital E evil character, suddenly be good to everyone accidentally.
Good has a bit more stringent requirements in my mind, and methodology as well as intent seem important to me in that regard. One could potentially say that giving money to a homeless person is a good act, but is accidentally dropping your wallet in their vicinity one?
Fighting against bigotry and racism is a good act, but if your approach involves pipe bombs and blowtorches I doubt it would be a good act.

BeerMug Paladin
2014-09-17, 04:31 PM
I'd say no. When a good character falls, it means performing an evil act and not being repentent for it. So it's likely to be a trend of a change in overall behavior.

When an evil character performs a good act, it could be for entirely selfish reasons, so it might not indicate a change in future behavior.

Erik Vale
2014-09-17, 07:34 PM
To go with the two general examples, you either have being empowered by good falling, or good people suffering/accidentally doing something so heinous causing them to go evil.

The later doesn't really work in most situations, so slow face heel turns are instead used. For the former, I imagine it happens to anti-paladins about as often as paladins, except instead of falling being eaten tends to be common.

Red Fel
2014-09-17, 07:48 PM
Yes, although it's usually much slower and made of smaller increments. A villain has someone he cares about, has a situation that makes him empathize with someone he doesn't care about, and wonders. Some minor soul searching leads to recognizing how much of a jerk his fellows are, and he betters himself.

He may turn good, or he may become Gentleman Evil.

This, so much.

Good becoming Evil is, in many cases, about a slippery slope - once you start to abandon one principle in pursuit of your goal, others follow, until you can justify any act in pursuit of your aims. Evil becoming Good is the opposite - Evil becomes Good when it is confronted by something that it values more than its own end goal.

When a villain discovers something that matters more than what he thought he wanted, he will seek to preserve that thing instead of simply pursuing his goals. When he places something else above himself - be it a person, a place, a cause or a concept - he is starting down the road to Good.

One classic example, as cited by Tarlek, is the Grinch - the villain suddenly realizes that there was something more important, more valuable, than the measly trinkets and tokens he sought to steal. Another is any villain who steps back and says, "Is that really... all I wanted? Could I have been... so blind? I never needed this... any of this... All I needed was _______..." And then fill in the blank with something outside of himself, apart from his goals, something wonderful for which he will have to set his conquests and indulgences aside, at least to some extent. When a villain abstains from a certain degree of villainy in favor of what matters more in life, he starts to rise.

Slipperychicken
2014-09-18, 01:15 AM
Easy. Evil guy sees some vulnerable innocents suffering (doesn't matter much how, but bonus points if it's clearly a result of his own wickedness). It gets to him somehow, and he just can't stand to let this happen. So he puts everything on the line to save them. Everything (yes, even the Evil Master-Plan). No chance of reimbursement, no PR-boost, no alliance value. Just simple altruism and total self-sacrifice.

Mastikator
2014-09-18, 01:40 AM
You can grow a conscience and without consciously making a decision to be better you just start doing helpful kindhearted things instead of being a sadistic jerk all the time.

It's usually not a big deal, since "the greater evil" isn't seen as some goal in the same way "the greater good". So you won't have people trying to justify good actions for "the greater evil", it's more likely that you feel like you don't have to justify anything. "Just because I serve Gamera the Devourer of Souls doesn't mean I can't help an old lady over the road".
Evil doesn't think about maximizing suffering in the same way Good thinks about minimizing suffering (not saying minimizing suffering is necessarily "the greater good"). You can switch from evil to good without negative consequences in most cases. Or at leas evil to neutral, since it's gonna take a lot to be actually good.

Nobot
2014-09-18, 02:57 AM
For a while, we used the rule that the acts of characters can cause them to shift only to neutral positions (from chaotic good to neutral good, or from lawful evil to lawful neutral). That mechanism serves to correct players who - at character creation - wanted to play a certain alignment, but didn't actually manage to do so in the game.

Shifting to extremes (good, evil, lawful, chaotic) could only be done through a conscious decision of the player to start playing that extreme alignment (unless performing an act that left no room for debate, such as slaughtering an entire nursing home of large-eyed, lovable orphans who are not accidentally scourging superdeathknightorphans of plague and destruction).

I never really liked the whole alignment thing though.

Sith_Happens
2014-09-18, 03:36 AM
[Snip]


[Snip]

Both of these. Case study: Greed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbCOWHU8cmc#t=01m00s) from Fullmetal Alchemist, though admittedly he was at least borderline Neutral to start with.

TheCrowing1432
2014-09-18, 03:49 AM
One single act can not, and should not determine the alignment of a single character. It is the DM's job to look at a players characters entire career and tailor their alignment accordingly.

"Can a single act turn from Evil to Good"


No, because no act is that powerful. Lets say theres some sort of transdimensional portal collapse that threatens the stability of the entire multiverse and the only one with the power to turn it off is the big bad evil guy. He decides to turn it off, saving trillions upon trillions of lives. Is he good? No, because he did it for pragmatic reasons, his own survival, he didnt give a bucket of goblin spit about anyone else.

Any single act that could possibly turn someone from evil to good, would be done through selfish reasons, either for survival of themselves, or survival of their loved ones.

Having loved ones doesnt mean you cant be evil, evil can love, have a family, have kids and still be the biggest scum in the universe. Saving them wouldnt change their nature.

Even if turning off the multiverse portal collapse turns the BBEG from evil to good, he's reassume his evil alighment when he returns to his evil schemes. Since alignment changes dont have any affect on your personality or choices you make unless you are bound by something akin to a paladins code.

Genth
2014-09-18, 04:05 AM
Interesting topic!

Would Vegeta from Dragonball Z be a good example of that? Small acts of kindness, explained as honor or amusement, and next thing he knows, he has a family and friends who love him.. and he can't deal with it. Just like the Paladin who falls and is shocked at what they've become, vegeta looks at himself one day and finds that he's a good guy and wants to stop it.

I think again, it's a matter of choice - a villain who is consistently presented with an 'Evil' choice that negatively affects them, and a 'Good' choice that benefits them, and ends up finding that they prefer to take the 'good' choices anyway..

Frozen_Feet
2014-09-18, 05:36 AM
A sudden fall-from-grace rally only applies to Paladins or other creatures with a strict code of conduct. A character very rarely changes from one alignment to another accidentally. If a "good" character accidentally commits a crime, they're usually horrified by the results, or the "accident" is just the culmination of a long stretch of neglectful behaviour on their part.

However, a sudden "rise-to grace" can happen on accident. One interesting example was a Doctor Strange story I just read. In it, the villain wanted power, and to that end absorbed half of Strange's powers. Strange's response was to give him all of it - because being Sorcerer Supreme also carries with it the knowledge and perspective of that power. As a result, the villain was cured from their desire for power, because for a brief moment, they saw all the dangers and responsibilities associated with it.

Red Fel
2014-09-18, 07:08 AM
Interesting topic!

Would Vegeta from Dragonball Z be a good example of that? Small acts of kindness, explained as honor or amusement, and next thing he knows, he has a family and friends who love him.. and he can't deal with it. Just like the Paladin who falls and is shocked at what they've become, vegeta looks at himself one day and finds that he's a good guy and wants to stop it.

I think again, it's a matter of choice - a villain who is consistently presented with an 'Evil' choice that negatively affects them, and a 'Good' choice that benefits them, and ends up finding that they prefer to take the 'good' choices anyway..

It's actually a fairly common syndrome in shounen genres. A rival arises to oppose the protagonist. Depending on the particular genre, this could be a small-scale rival (competing in gym class or for the same girl's affections) or large-scale (his opponent on the battlefield). The rival fights the protagonist on multiple occasions, but starts losing with greater frequency. Eventually, one of several things happens: He attempts to learn the hero's secrets, to see what makes him so great. Along the way, he (accidentally, or as part of his investigation) makes friends, who start to matter to him. Eventually, he succeeds, and discovers the Power Of Friendship. He sinks into despair, only for the hero to show compassion. Having never experienced compassion, he is at a loss, and then becomes enlightened by the hero's Power Of Friendship. He realizes that those who have been directing him are even worse than he is, and joins forces with the hero to stop them. Seeing the hero from the same side of the fight, he learns to respect him. This leads to Friendship, as above. As #3, but he realizes that the values for which he thought he was fighting are rubbish; instead, he adopts the hero's values, such as Friendship.It tends to be gradual, and Vegeta is certainly one version of that. (Although his change is not so much "gradual" as "Wait, when did he and Bulma get married? What?") It's a fairly common shounen trope.

DM Nate
2014-09-18, 07:30 AM
Just because I serve Gamera the Devourer of Souls...

Woah woah woah, and here I was thinking Gamera was a friend to children everywhere

Mastikator
2014-09-18, 07:36 AM
Woah woah woah, and here I was thinking Gamera was a friend to children everywhere
Oh it's just a name, like Krogar The Defiler of Corpses or Parthunax the Lord of Pain. All the demon monsters have names like that in the pit of despair.

Jay R
2014-09-18, 07:55 AM
Severus Snape didn't choose to leave the Dark Lord. He had no choice.

Red Fel
2014-09-18, 08:32 AM
Woah woah woah, and here I was thinking Gamera was a friend to children everywhereOh it's just a name, like Krogar The Defiler of Corpses or Parthunax the Lord of Pain. All the demon monsters have names like that in the pit of despair.

We have now referenced tokusatsu, Futurama, and Princess Bride over a period of two posts. I can safely say this is the highest density of popular culture I've encountered in a thread in a very long time.

Nothing else to add, except that Gamera totally is friend to all children everywhere. Everywhere.

Rater202
2014-09-18, 08:53 AM
Has anyone played the Original Disgaea?

Laharl, 1313(13) year old son of the Overlord, starts out not only evil but hammy evil, at one point early on threatening to kill a juvenile Angel Flonne(1509, or just 15) and take the rewards she was offering by force.

By the end of the game he's crying when that same angel is "dead" and offering his life in return for hers, and is incredibly shocked that he feels that way about those events(It's also heavily implied that he, like, "like" likes her by then).

There are several hints throughout the game that he's getting less and less evil and/or is in denial about how evil/good he really is, but it's only confirmed that he's not evil anymore, in the above scene, when the Angel Flonne protective pendant doesn't burn him, as it had been stated and demonstrated to do to those with evil in their hearts. He'd been burned by it previously.

This shift is depicted in a way that feels organic, so yes, evil turning good without realizing it is possible, me thinks.

A Tad Insane
2014-09-18, 09:54 AM
One single act won't cause a character to become good, just like Arthus and Anankin didn't go from exemplars of good to Evil in one act, but rather slowly sacrificing a moral or two for one goal. Gru from Despicable Me is a good example of a character going from evil to good

lytokk
2014-09-18, 09:59 AM
Its definitely possible. The Evil character has to find something worth more to him than himself, but that in my book, is only good enough to get him to neutral. For him to get to a good alignment, he's going to have to start feeling that way about nearly everything he comes across. Caring about only your family and laying down your life for them, while a good quality, has a little bit of selfishness in it. Caring about this guy's family even though you're seeing him for the first time an being willing to die for him simply because he exists is completely good.

Of course my view of good breaks down when you step further back from it and realize that killing one person to save another persons family can possibly doom the attackers family due to the fact that the attacker is no longer there to protect them. I normally try to avoid getting to these scenarios in my games, unless I'm specifically running that type of game.

JusticeZero
2014-09-18, 03:17 PM
The evil was always fighting for something that was reasonably Good, but using evil and heartless methods. After awhile, the Dark One gains a bit of power to use to further her goals; land and a source of minions. She starts having to shepherd and protect her people if only to keep her minions coming. She learns that unfairness and corruption in her ranks is a danger to her plans and a source of headaches, so she has the ,scheming Vizier dealt with and starts weeding the greedy judges out in favor of pure loyalty. Then one day she deals with a threat to her people and only later realizes that she never thought to justify whether it furthered her goals to do so..

jedipotter
2014-09-18, 03:42 PM
Easy. Evil guy sees some vulnerable innocents suffering (doesn't matter much how, but bonus points if it's clearly a result of his own wickedness). It gets to him somehow, and he just can't stand to let this happen. So he puts everything on the line to save them. Everything (yes, even the Evil Master-Plan). No chance of reimbursement, no PR-boost, no alliance value. Just simple altruism and total self-sacrifice.

But this is the evil guy choosing to be good. The same way a good guy can choose to turn to evil. And that is one way to change alignment. Another is the not choosing too.

The good way is easy to see, as it happens all the time. The Bad Guy tosses a bunch of innocents and the Hero's wife off a cliff. Now, the Official Good Rules say the Good Guy Must save the innocents first. This is Good 101. It's ok for anyone person to die, no matter who they are, if you save a group innocents. So, in most cases the Good Guy will save the innocents and let the wife die and by happily good ever after. But every once in a while, the good person will choose to save their wife and let all the innocents die. Though when they make that choice, they fall from good.

The bad way is a bit harder. How do you ''make a mistake '' and rise towards good?

Segev
2014-09-18, 03:54 PM
The Bad Guy tosses a bunch of innocents and the Hero's wife off a cliff. Now, the Official Good Rules say the Good Guy Must save the innocents first. This is Good 101. It's ok for anyone person to die, no matter who they are, if you save a group innocents. So, in most cases the Good Guy will save the innocents and let the wife die and by happily good ever after. But every once in a while, the good person will choose to save their wife and let all the innocents die. Though when they make that choice, they fall from good.

Uh, what?

No. Definitely not.

It is not "evil" to choose to save one person over another, or to choose to save one person over two others, etc. "Moral calculus" just doesn't work that way. You can certainly use it as a guideline if you have no other reasons, but it's NOT evil to choose to save your wife rather than 10 strangers, as long as you are not the one dooming the strangers to save your wife.

The bad guy is the one who pulled the metaphorical trigger on both your wife and the strangers. It's on him that the strangers died when you chose to save your wife rather than them. I don't doubt that many good people would feel agonized over their failure to save the strangers, too, but it is not a moral imperative to save 10 over saving 1.

Now, if the bad guy had it set up such that, if you push a button, your wife is saved but 10 strangers who will otherwise not die will die, then it's evil to push that button, as you have chosen to kill 10 people to save your wife. It would be similarly evil to push the button in the reverse situation, where pushing it kills your wife (who was not going to die if you didn't push it) but saves 10 strangers (who will die if you do).

But again, it's not evil to choose to save one person over 10. You are but doing the best you can.

To really highlight why this is a false case of evil, what happens if it's 1 stranger vs your wife? Is it evil to save your wife at the expense of the stranger? Is it more good to save the stranger, or your wife?

Lord Torath
2014-09-18, 04:32 PM
But this is the evil guy choosing to be good. The same way a good guy can choose to turn to evil. And that is one way to change alignment. Another is the not choosing too.

The bad way is a bit harder. How do you ''make a mistake '' and rise towards good?Red Fel and Segev have already listed several good examples of this. Now I don't know of any single act that will take you from full evil to full good, just like there's no single act that will take you from full good to full evil. A paladin that falls due to an evil act does not suddenly become evil. The paladin is no longer a paladin, but unless the trend of evil acts continues, he(she)'s still a lawful-good fighter, doing his(her) best to be good. Your alignment is not the last act you've done, it's the overall trend of your actions.

I would argue that Belkar is "accidentally" moving towards good. He released the Allosaurus to give Ganji and Enor a chance to escape, with no thought of reward (it paid off down the road, but he wasn't thinking about that at the time). He's done a couple of other good acts, but it remains to be seen if this will continue. Your alignment does not dictate your actions, but is dictated by them, with the most recent bearing the most weight.

Even going by your first example, about the good guy chasing the bad guy, and letting the innocents burn. He's not instantly evil, even assuming he could have rescued everyone from the fire. He may have made a mistake, but unless he decides to Start Kicking Puppies, he will most likely mourn with those who lost loved ones in the fire, help with the rebuilding, and continue on trying to be good.

jedipotter
2014-09-18, 04:37 PM
But again, it's not evil to choose to save one person over 10. You are but doing the best you can.

To really highlight why this is a false case of evil, what happens if it's 1 stranger vs your wife? Is it evil to save your wife at the expense of the stranger? Is it more good to save the stranger, or your wife?

If you choose to save someone, just as you know them, that is selfish. That is on the road to evil.

A good person must, mostly, save 'more' then 'less'. So he must save ten people over one, if possible. And a good person must save innocents over 'normal' people, if at all possible.

And it's not just a 'stranger', sure a good person can let a 'stranger' die to save their wife or kid. But the good person can't let an innocent die, just to save their family member. And even more so, dozens of innocents.

Lord Torath
2014-09-18, 04:40 PM
If you choose to save someone, just as you know them, that is selfish. That is on the road to evil.

A good person must, mostly, save 'more' then 'less'. So he must save ten people over one, if possible. And a good person must save innocents over 'normal' people, if at all possible.

And it's not just a 'stranger', sure a good person can let a 'stranger' die to save their wife or kid. But the good person can't let an innocent die, just to save their family member. And even more so, dozens of innocents.And what of your innocent family members? Why does the other innocent count more than your own innocents? Where are you getting these rules?

Sith_Happens
2014-09-18, 05:15 PM
But this is the evil guy choosing to be good. The same way a good guy can choose to turn to evil. And that is one way to change alignment. Another is the not choosing too.

Yes, an Evil character can have a sudden epiphany and decide that they want to be Good (or vice-versa, and/or on the other axis), but it's going to take a while of acting on that decision before they start pinging on the opposite Detect spell.


And what of your innocent family members? Why does the other innocent count more than your own innocents? Where are you getting these rules?

From one of any large number of moral and ethical systems, though the D&D alignment system isn't one of those so for the purposes of this thread the imperative in question is in fact fallacious.

BeerMug Paladin
2014-09-18, 05:34 PM
Yes, an Evil character can have a sudden epiphany and decide that they want to be Good (or vice-versa, and/or on the other axis), but it's going to take a while of acting on that decision before they start pinging on the opposite Detect spell.
Yes. Alignment is largely a matter of intent, and the only way to really demonstrate a change is when difficult choices need to be made that test the conviction of that intention. That takes time.

jedipotter
2014-09-18, 05:41 PM
And what of your innocent family members? Why does the other innocent count more than your own innocents? Where are you getting these rules?

Well, fiction is where you find the rules.

If you save anyone you know, it is selfish, your saving them as you want to save them for your own needs. A true good person does good for good, not for themselves.

And the stranger innocent is more at risk if they have no connection to anything and are just there. The Hero's innocent family members where put at risk as soon as the Hero decided to be a Hero. A Hero has to put doing good before family.

Rater202
2014-09-18, 05:46 PM
WRONG!

When faced with a sadistic choice, a true hero save the bus load of innocents and their loved ones.

Even still, the idea that "Selfish=Evil" is horribly flawed, and no, you're not evil for prioritizing the people you love over total strangers.

NoldorForce
2014-09-19, 01:08 AM
This question of "who do you save?" is a known quandary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem), and there's no single definitive answer to it. But that being said, there are a number of normative ethical theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics) which attempt to grapple with it and other questions, and we can roughly categorize them:
Deontological ethics, which judge the morality of actions based on their adherence to rules.
Virtue ethics, which judge the morality of actions based on their relation to one's character and their adherence to virtue.
Consequentalist ethics, which judge the morality of actions based on their results.
I don't claim to be an expert in this stuff - I just happened to take one class in ethics for college - but it's worth looking into these theories to see the differing ideas on what constitutes morality. None of them are "perfect" in any sense, but each has its own merits and flaws.

Interestingly, I recall someone writing an article (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/checkfortraps/8386-All-About-Alignment) that tried to derive coherent definitions of Law/Neutrality/Chaos and Good/Neutral/Evil in the D&D alignment sense. (The definitions usually given in the books are muddled and/or contradictory.) What they came up with was to map things to types of normative ethical theories. Thus:
Lawful <-> Deontological ethics
Neutral <-> Virtue ethics
Chaotic <-> Consequentalist ethics

Anyways, jedipotter's answer to the question is based on some form of rule utilitarianism (consequentalist), i.e. that morality is based on maximizing the utility of one's actions according to certain rules. In this case, the relevant rule is "save as many people as possible". ("Utility" is a somewhat fuzzy term that refers to the net moral value of an action based on its consequences.)

hamishspence
2014-09-19, 01:22 AM
Even still, the idea that "Selfish=Evil" is horribly flawed, and no, you're not evil for prioritizing the people you love over total strangers.
Indeed. You might be nongood (in the D&D sense) though.

Neutral people tend to prioritise their loved ones (and going by Savage Species, even Evil people can have loved ones and prioritise them).

Good people, maybe not so much.

aspi
2014-09-19, 10:19 AM
"Can a single act turn from Evil to Good"

No, because no act is that powerful. [...]

One single act won't cause a character to become good, just like Arthus and Anankin didn't go from exemplars of good to Evil in one act, but rather slowly sacrificing a moral or two for one goal. Gru from Despicable Me is a good example of a character going from evil to good
I would argue that Anakin is the perfect example that this is in fact possible. It's the entire premise of heroic redemption, such as in Vader's case in Return of the Jedi. Of course, it requires the character to die or at least sacrifice something of major importance.

I would agree that it is arguable how this would hold up in the real world, but as a literary trope it definitely exists.

Sartharina
2014-09-19, 10:34 AM
One of the closest thing's I've seen to a "Rise from Evil" would be Guardians of The Galaxy.

Ebon2014
2014-09-19, 12:28 PM
So does this happen to Evil? Are there acts that are so good that a evil character would rise from evil and be Good? If so, what are they?

I don't think so. Doing good is in general a harder thing to do, and most often has to be done through a choice. I don't think 'accidentally' doing good counts as redemption. (But then, I don't think the example given for Good should cause the Good character to become Evil, either; alignment change comes after establishing a pattern of choices, not a singular incident). But certainly an evil character can choose to change, and to do Good.

Hopefully with 5.0, this sort of thing will fall away into the background. It comes the closest of any edition to just getting rid of the entire alignment idea altogether.

PersonMan
2014-09-19, 01:40 PM
I think it is doable, but generally with an attachment to something. Protection, for selfish reasons or what have you (could be something like the Evil Overlord's beloved upper class who lives in luxury because of how the poor are forced to slave away for their profit), eventually widening or otherwise turning into something more Neutral than Evil, then making a slow transition into Good. "Don't murder or torture captives, we have a deal with their faction so they won't do the same" turns into "Don't murder or torture captives, it might provoke a similar response" and that eventually becomes "Don't murder or torture captives".

jedipotter
2014-09-19, 01:59 PM
I don't think so. Doing good is in general a harder thing to do, and most often has to be done through a choice. I don't think 'accidentally' doing good counts as redemption. (But then, I don't think the example given for Good should cause the Good character to become Evil, either; alignment change comes after establishing a pattern of choices, not a singular incident). But certainly an evil character can choose to change, and to do Good.

I don't want to get stuck on the ''one act equals fall''. I don't think that is true. Even more so for the mistake type action.


Most fiction has Good people walking a crazy tightrope. Every second of the the day the Good person has to be careful as they might take an action and start to fall from good. The evil person, on the other hand, can do whatever they want all the time. They can take good or evil actions, at random, and still always safely be evil.

Red Fel
2014-09-19, 02:01 PM
Most fiction has Good people walking a crazy tightrope. Every second of the the day the Good person has to be careful as they might take an action and start to fall from good. The evil person, on the other hand, can do whatever they want all the time. They can take good or evil actions, at random, and still always safely be evil.

Doesn't that preclude the existence of redemption, though? If an evil person can do good or evil, at his leisure, and remain evil, doesn't that render redemption impossible?

For redemption to exist, there must be some course of action - however we define it - that allows an evil character to become good. If such a course of action exists, however, evil can't simply "do whatever they want all the time" - we will have established that certain actions serve to redeem an evil person.

So which is it?

Sartharina
2014-09-19, 02:22 PM
Doesn't that preclude the existence of redemption, though? If an evil person can do good or evil, at his leisure, and remain evil, doesn't that render redemption impossible?

For redemption to exist, there must be some course of action - however we define it - that allows an evil character to become good. If such a course of action exists, however, evil can't simply "do whatever they want all the time" - we will have established that certain actions serve to redeem an evil person.

So which is it?

Redemption requires a mindset change, not merely a change in action.

jedipotter
2014-09-19, 02:31 PM
Doesn't that preclude the existence of redemption, though? If an evil person can do good or evil, at his leisure, and remain evil, doesn't that render redemption impossible?

For redemption to exist, there must be some course of action - however we define it - that allows an evil character to become good. If such a course of action exists, however, evil can't simply "do whatever they want all the time" - we will have established that certain actions serve to redeem an evil person.

I'm on the side that you can rise from evil. But I also say it can be done without the big willing change. The same way a good person can fall ''by mistake'' and not intend too.

So that brings the question: What actions would cause someone to fall from good

And

What actions would cause a person to rise from evil?

Sartharina
2014-09-19, 02:58 PM
I'm on the side that you can rise from evil. But I also say it can be done without the big willing change. The same way a good person can fall ''by mistake'' and not intend too.

So that brings the question: What actions would cause someone to fall from good

And

What actions would cause a person to rise from evil?I'd say fundamentally misunderstanding their alignment.

The "Good Guy" who believes that there is No Tolerance At All For Less Than Virtuous Behavior quickly finds himself falling from good for murdering shifty shopkeepers, stressed parents, and standard two-year-olds (I have never met anyone under the age of 8 who wouldn't classify as "Chaotic Evil" if they had the means to do anything.)

Meanwhile, the "Thinks-he's Lawful Evil Overlord" who tries to take over the world by winning public support in open, honest elections through improving quality of life for everyone, ensures his soldiers have adequate compensation, morale, access to personal leave, etc, and his citizens are free from fear, and quells political dissent through carefully listening to and addressing concerns, etc. Essentially, what happens when I play Tropico.

Or the Allegedy Chaotic Evil Hedonist who goes where she wants, does what she wants, kills who she wants, takes what she wants, and doesn't care how others think of her - except "Goes Where she wants" is usually places in need of help, "Does what she wants" is usually some form of assistance to others, and the people she wants to kill are people who should be killed anyway, and what she wants to take are things nobody cares if she takes anyway. Sort of like my Gnoll bard, who's motto was "Don't make me think."

JusticeZero
2014-09-19, 08:01 PM
Meanwhile, the "Thinks-he's Lawful Evil Overlord" who tries to take over the world by winning public support in open, honest elections through improving quality of life for everyone, ensures his soldiers have adequate compensation, morale, access to personal leave, etc, and his citizens are free from fear, and quells political dissent through carefully listening to and addressing concerns, etc. Essentially, what happens when I play Tropico.

Well, the point on that one was that when they're acting alone, they're a vicious and sadistic murderhobo terrorist. Give them some land to manage toward their goals and they're a decent administrator.

Sartharina
2014-09-20, 03:22 AM
Well, the point on that one was that when they're acting alone, they're a vicious and sadistic murderhobo terrorist. Give them some land to manage toward their goals and they're a decent administrator.Unless he's not motivated to be a vicious and sadistic murderhobo terrorist, and is more interested in ingratiating himself with others and ensuring he has a strong social network through honest and forthright dealings (And reliable favors).

Ettina
2014-09-20, 11:17 AM
Despicable Me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despicable_Me).

Gru had no intention of turning good, but those little girls just wormed their way into his heart.

hamishspence
2014-09-21, 11:30 AM
How about "Becoming the Mask" stories where the Evil character has to pretend to be a hero, and ends up becoming one?

Wardog
2014-09-21, 01:50 PM
I suppose it could start with a bud-guy thinking/realizing that "doing things for the evulz" is just stupid, and causes more problems than is worth it, and/or finding it in bad taste, and/or realizing that doing good has benefits (and not just in the "now people will trust me!" sense).

So the evil Lord Evilington doesn't particularly care about his peasants, but he thinks actively oppressing them is in bad taste (and will likely lead to rebellion, which is a waste of resources to put down). And if bandits or barbarians are preying on him, that's (a) a personal insult, and (b) reduces his tax take, so he has to deal with them, just as a good or neutral ruler would have to.

And things gradually snowball from there: running an effective and thriving domain is a point of pride, so he makes sure the peasants have access to as many useful services as would be practical in a pseudo-medieval setting. Over-taxing people causes rebellion, and also stifles trade and so reduces overall tax take, so he keeps them reasonable. Wars are messy and wasteful, and often go wrong, so he avoids getting involved in them as much as possible. If the peasants are happy, and supportive of him, they will be more productive and less likely to revolt, so he makes sure he listens to their concerns and try to provide solutions within reason. All this started with purely selfish motivations, but he's not only directly "doing good" in a utilitarian sense, but he's also having to listen to people, become more empathic, getting more personally invested in making sure things are ok for them, etc.

At the same time, he sees other evil lords starting pointless wars (and often losing), pointlessly oppressing their subjects (and often provoking revolts as a result), backstabbing and betraying their allies and treating their henchmen as expendable (and often getting betrayed in turn as a result), and so gradually finds Evil behaviour more and more distasteful and stupid.


Until eventually he's not "doing good" out of self-interest, but because he finds it good in its own right, and evil objectionable. And at some point or other he (possibly without realising) will have become Good (or at least Neutral).

Earthwalker
2014-09-22, 07:10 AM
I don't think its possible to rise from evil without trying, equally I don't think it is possible to fall from good without trying.

The original example I feel is not correct in how i see alignments working.

Setting an inocent man on fire = Evil Act
Not putting out a man on fire = Netral Act
Saving an inocent man on fire = Good Act.

If a good character decided to not put out a man on fire, and instead did another Good act (slaing the bad guy) he has performed one netral act and one Good. no change of alinment needed.

If the good character kept not putting out people on fire, over a period of time he would more to netral.

The classic who do you save question is moot, if the good character chooses to save someone he is performing a good act, not saving people is not an evil act. It is a netral act.

Ettina
2014-09-22, 07:28 AM
I don't think its possible to rise from evil without trying, equally I don't think it is possible to fall from good without trying.

The original example I feel is not correct in how i see alignments working.

Setting an inocent man on fire = Evil Act
Not putting out a man on fire = Netral Act
Saving an inocent man on fire = Good Act.

If a good character decided to not put out a man on fire, and instead did another Good act (slaing the bad guy) he has performed one netral act and one Good. no change of alinment needed.

If the good character kept not putting out people on fire, over a period of time he would more to netral.

The classic who do you save question is moot, if the good character chooses to save someone he is performing a good act, not saving people is not an evil act. It is a netral act.

But what if you try to kill a Good guy, because you've convinced yourself that they're Evil? (And I don't mean an honest mistake here. I mean a reasonable person wouldn't have thought they were Evil, and if you stopped to think about it you'd know they weren't Evil, but you don't want to question your actions so you don't stop to think.)

Earthwalker
2014-09-22, 08:13 AM
But what if you try to kill a Good guy, because you've convinced yourself that they're Evil? (And I don't mean an honest mistake here. I mean a reasonable person wouldn't have thought they were Evil, and if you stopped to think about it you'd know they weren't Evil, but you don't want to question your actions so you don't stop to think.)

Thats a fair point in context of the OPs question tho, couldn't a evil character kill another evil character by mistake as well. Killing evil is a good act ? Maybe a netral one. doesn't that mean he could shift upwards. Again this is partly by choice as neither thought to check what the alignment of the person they were killing was.

Of course even if you were good and killed a good guy, even if you were a paladin, you might fall but you would and should be able to atone. In future make sure you know before you go kill crazy. The paladin would still be Good aligned after one murder, he would have to keep doing evil / netral acts to move down the scale.

Segev
2014-09-22, 09:14 AM
And it's not just a 'stranger', sure a good person can let a 'stranger' die to save their wife or kid. But the good person can't let an innocent die, just to save their family member. And even more so, dozens of innocents.As mentioned by others, why is the stranger "more innocent" than my family member?

Heck, if I know for a fact that my baby sister is innocent, but don't know if those 10 guys over there are, is it more evil in your book to doom my definitely-innocent sister to save those 10 guys-who-could-be-innocent-or-could-be-monsters-but-I-just-do-not-know, or is it more evil to not save them because there are more of them and I selfishly love my baby sister more than I love those 10 strangers?

What if I know 9 of them are reprobates, don't know about one, but still know my baby sister is innocent?

What if it's just my innocent baby sister vs. a stranger I somehow know is innocent?


If you save anyone you know, it is selfish, your saving them as you want to save them for your own needs. A true good person does good for good, not for themselves. This is absolutely false. Good is not about maximizing personal sacrifice. It is about doing the best you can for as many as you can. When you have scarce resources, are you saying it's evil to use them to benefit your family before you use them to benefit strangers, just because you know your family?

If you have enough food to get your family through the winter, and you already know that you, personally, are risking starving to death to make sure your family has enough to eat, is it evil to refuse to cut your family's rations in half (knowing it will likely kill them) in order to share with another family that is twice as big as yours (knowing that it will not be enough to save them)?

What if it was a family exactly as big as yours; would it be evil to refuse to give them all of your family's food, because it could save their family and saving these innocent strangers is good but preserving your own family is selfish and evil?


And the stranger innocent is more at risk if they have no connection to anything and are just there. The Hero's innocent family members where put at risk as soon as the Hero decided to be a Hero. A Hero has to put doing good before family.I have no idea where you get this notion. The hero's family is at risk because he's a hero, and so he is evil for protecting them over others? What if them being put in danger is WHY he started "being a hero?"

There's nothing about being a hero that changes the definition of evil and good for you. Being good helps make you a hero; being evil helps make you a villain. You being a hero and your twin brother not being a hero (whatever that means) can't possibly make it evil for you to save him over a stranger, but good for him to save you over a stranger.


Most fiction has Good people walking a crazy tightrope. Every second of the the day the Good person has to be careful as they might take an action and start to fall from good. The evil person, on the other hand, can do whatever they want all the time. They can take good or evil actions, at random, and still always safely be evil.I would contend that, if your concern is "not falling from good" rather than "choosing the best action you can figure out," you're not really being good-aligned anyway. If you're being any alignment, it's Lawful, and then only wrt trying to follow some external rules and game them to maximize your "good-guy points."


Meanwhile, the "Thinks-he's Lawful Evil Overlord" who tries to take over the world by winning public support in open, honest elections through improving quality of life for everyone, ensures his soldiers have adequate compensation, morale, access to personal leave, etc, and his citizens are free from fear, and quells political dissent through carefully listening to and addressing concerns, etc. Essentially, what happens when I play Tropico.

Or the Allegedy Chaotic Evil Hedonist who goes where she wants, does what she wants, kills who she wants, takes what she wants, and doesn't care how others think of her - except "Goes Where she wants" is usually places in need of help, "Does what she wants" is usually some form of assistance to others, and the people she wants to kill are people who should be killed anyway, and what she wants to take are things nobody cares if she takes anyway. Sort of like my Gnoll bard, who's motto was "Don't make me think."In both cases, I would not be surprised if these are good people who gave up on "being good" in theory because they were told by people who have rigid rules of alignment that good must be nice and obedient and basically have fallen for the lies of those who seek to claim good is impossible to achieve. However, these people's morals and convictions are strong enough that, even when they believe the lies that claim their actions are evil, they are seeking to do the best they can for as many as they can, because helping others makes them happy.