Another alignment question: can a "good person" be evil alignment?

[Astralia123]

I guess most people here would agree that a "good person" does not have to be good alignment.
A guy could be either honest, trustworthy or even noble in some ways while being solid lawful neutral. And such a character can and sometimes does serve a evil cause (like a knight of an evil empire or some sort).
This does not prevent the players or readers (depends on what media we are talking about but mostly not much difference) from liking or respecting such a character, so hopefully you will get what I mean by "good person".

But now I wonder could such a character be undoubtfully evil alignment, while still being a "good person".


To specify what I'm looking for, I'm expecting either a character idea that is complexed enough to make a challenging roleplay theme, or an NPC that is charimatic enough to trouble my players when he stands in their way.
I can't say what makes up a "good person", but as I mentioned before, a novel reader tend to like/respect such a character, even if he is a villian.
I'm not really talking about "charismatic villians", though sometimes I guess a character can be both.



Well my mind might be too fogged to come up with sth clear enough :)

[NecessaryWeevil]

Well, our judgments of others tend to be subjective; if they're on our side we tend to be more likely to label them 'good.'

So, for example, I once had a character who grew up in a nation despotically ruled by a campaign villain. She escaped and vowed to a) become powerful enough that she would never again live in fear, and be master of her own fate and
b) take this villain down.

She ended up joining the rest of the heroes in combating this villain, so to her allies and indeed much of the world she was 'good.' She was very much an 'ends justify the means' person, with a healthy dose of paranoia, and had no trouble sacrificing strangers and being merciless to foes. She ended up outliving most of her allies and eventually became one of the more powerful beings on the planet. She came to consider the place hers, and would protect it against outside invaders, and occasionally had a flash of empathy and righteous anger for people who were oppressed like she used to be. So long as she was safe and comfortable she had no desire to rule anyone else - although quite willing to use threats and lethal force if she disagreed with how a given ruler operated.

On the whole she was probably Lawful Evil, but to those on the 'right' side she was 'good.'

[jedipotter]

But now I wonder could such a character be undoubtfully evil alignment, while still being a "good person".


Yes. One of the best things about evil is that evil can do whatever they want. They don't have a bunch of rules and other things to follow. So they can do whatever they need to do to be considered a ''good person''.

Tons of evil people live their lives like this: pretending to be good in public and being evil when they are not in public. Pretending to be good, when it's not a burden is very easy.

And an evil person can easily do plenty of evil in the full view and guise of good. For example they can let their guard down, to all appearances, and then be free to 'over react' when something goes bad. The evil person can also really take advantage of less intelligent good people to do evil. Manipulation is quite easy when the target is not smart. The evil person can convert others to the dark side, and if they are really twisted, do it without others even noticing.

And it's really easy for a evil person to be Stupid Good. And all most all Good people fall for Stupid Good ideas. And Stupid Good can be so stupid, it's evil.

Good also likes facts, and they will accept facts that amazingly fit their good views and outlook. A good person would never agree with killing a prisoner for no reason, but if that prisoner had a gotten a weapon and was attacking, then killing the prisoner in ''self defense'' is all good. The evil person just needs to plant the weapon, or even let them escape.

[Zanos]

It doesn't take much to get slapped with an Evil Alignment in 3.5. A character who is otherwise pleasant and noble with an "ends justify the means" attitude will probably be Evil, because according to D&D's objective morality system, Good ends can never justify Evil means. As I recall, the Book of Exalted Deeds actually takes that one step further, and says that Evil acts can never create a Good end result because of some hokey morality that I don't actually run, but someone thought it was a good idea to write down.

So yes, a character can have a slew of admirable of traits and be someone worthy of respect and still be Evil.

[Karl Aegis]

You can be a genuine good person towards whatever groups you favor. The only things that have any problems with you normally are those who you have a deep-seated hatred for or they have a deep-seated hatred for you. Of course, Evil domain Clerics or Evil Mantle Ardents might be too evil to handle being good.

[Dysart]

Depends how you look at it really.

For instance you could be an evil aligned creature, like a Vampire or a Werewolf and be a good person. That would work for your concept.
You could have the person be the hero/saviour of a large group of people and then turn out to be a Werewolf/Vampire/Monster secretly and then give them the difficult decision.

Or if we're talking about pure alignment, Lawful Evil (in my personal view) is abiding the Law so fully that you're willing to follow it through to the letter without giving any mercy to wrong do-ers. Willingness to carry out judgement on all who break the law to the fullest level of the law.
Infact, a city could be Lawful Evil and be more prosperous and have safer streets because law breakers would be punished more.

[KrimsonNekros]

You also have characters like Richard B. Riddick. He's cruel, merciless, and ultimately self serving, but when he cares for or respect someone, it's legitimate and deep. Those he cares about he's willing to go out of his way to help them as well. But these instances are exceptions to his generally evil and self serving nature. Is he a good person? Debatable. Is he capable of good actions? Definitely, in the right circumstances.

[Deophaun]

Or if we're talking about pure alignment, Lawful Evil (in my personal view) is abiding the Law so fully that you're willing to follow it through to the letter without giving any mercy to wrong do-ers. Willingness to carry out judgement on all who break the law to the fullest level of the law.

Nope. That's Mechanus. LN. The only hope you have of "mercy" when on the wrong side of a Marut is when you're standing next to someone who has done worse. And that's just deferred execution.

[goto124]

Depends on how borked the alignment system is :P

[Edenbeast]

An evil character can still serve a good cause. He/she can, for example, be fighting an evil cult. Maybe even have served the very same cult, but after learning about their ultimate goals, and how these threaten to change the world (something the character does not want), he leaves and works against them.
The character's actions are questionable, even evil when doing whatever it takes to fight the cult, including murdering people who dare to cross his path. But eventually the character will realise he cannot fight them alone, and aligns with a 'good' party if they serve the same purpose: Defeating the greater evil.

[TheCrowing1432]

This is good reading

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

[Marlowe]

As long as we're ruining people's lives with tvtropes; try this one (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilVirtues?from=Main.VillainousVirtues) as well.

All that's required for an evil person to appear good is for their more admirable qualities to be spotlighted by the narrative, destiny, or happenstance, while their evil is left as details.

[Andezzar]

I disagree with a character being able to be a "good person" with an evil alignment. This is only remotely possible if you use different standards for the good and the evil in the statement. If you use the definitions of the rulebooks for both adjectives the statement becomes plain nonsense. A character of evil alignment is a character that predominantly performs evil deeds. A character of good alignment is one that predominantly performs good deeds. Thus one cannot be both.
If you use other definitions of good and evil, the point becomes moot because most of them are very subjective.

If however you want to know whether a character of evil alignment can form personal attachments and/or exhibit kindness towards others or at a minimum do things that benefit others, then the answer is clearly yes.

[hamishspence]

I disagree with a character being able to be a "good person" with an evil alignment. This is only remotely possible if you use different standards for the good and the evil in the statement. If you use the definitions of the rulebooks for both adjectives the statement becomes plain nonsense. A character of evil alignment is a character that predominantly performs evil deeds. A character of good alignment is one that predominantly performs good deeds. Thus one cannot be both.
If you use other definitions of good and evil, the point becomes moot because most of them are very subjective.

If however you want to know whether a character of evil alignment can form personal attachments and/or exhibit kindness towards others or at a minimum do things that benefit others, then the answer is clearly yes.

A character who does enormous quantities of Evil deeds (casting [Evil] spells, torture (of villains) soul-destroying (of villains) and so forth) but also exhibits the traditional "Good" behavioural pattern (takes risks for, and makes personal sacrifices for, people they have no emotional attachment to) could be, from the point of view of everyone who doesn't see them "Paying Evil To Evil" - an exceedingly Good person.

And given that certain Evil deeds (the aforementioned soul-destroying) are incompatible with a Neutral alignment going by BoVD "Only the vilest could cause pain to a person's eternal aspect" - they'd be Evil despite their great altruism.

[Andezzar]

Being perceived as a "good person" does not make someone a "good person". Good and Evil according to D&D standards are objective measurable properties. So a character is either one or the other (or neutral). That does not mean others cannot see an evil person as something else, but that is a matter of their perception not of the character in question.

[hamishspence]

Being perceived as a "good person" does not make someone a "good person".

True - but the OP is going with "perception" in this case:


I guess most people here would agree that a "good person" does not have to be good alignment.
A guy could be either honest, trustworthy or even noble in some ways while being solid lawful neutral. And such a character can and sometimes does serve a evil cause (like a knight of an evil empire or some sort).
This does not prevent the players or readers (depends on what media we are talking about but mostly not much difference) from liking or respecting such a character, so hopefully you will get what I mean by "good person".

A character who has many virtues (enough to win the liking of the players/readers), but whose alignment happens to be Neutral or Evil.

[Chronos]

If you're assuming that it's possible to be a "good person" while also having an evil alignment, then you're using a very odd definition for at least one of those two things. You can have a mix of some good traits and some evil traits (in fact, most people do), and that might put you anywhere on the spectrum from good to evil, depending on what those traits are and how many there are. But if you're evil enough to have an evil alignment, then you're evil enough to not be called a "good person", and vice-versa.

[hamishspence]

That depends heavily on how hard it is to gain an evil alignment.

Some evil acts, players/readers will forgive, even if "the mechanics of the universe" force an Evil alignment on the character for committing those acts.

[Andezzar]

That depends heavily on how hard it is to gain an evil alignment.

Some evil acts, players/readers will forgive, even if "the mechanics of the universe" force an Evil alignment on the character for committing those acts.Forgiveness by the characters/readers is irrelevant for the classification of good or evil.

Likability is totally independent from alignment. Look at the Song of Ice and Fire for example. By D&D 's standards, and by most other standards (nearly) all characters are evil, yet some clearly are more likable than others.

Just because others feel certain emotions towards characters those characters do not necessarily have certain traits. Everyone is entitled to like the bad guy, in spite of or even because of being the bad guy.

[hamishspence]

"Good person" in the colloquial sense, can differ from "Good-aligned person".

I think that, if the OP wants the players to say "You're a good man" to their opponent, and mean it, without the opponent actually having a good alignment, then the easiest way is to show that they are genuinely altruistic.

[Andezzar]

Being genuinely altruistic however interferes with the evil alignment. There is no problem for a character to say anything about any other character (regardless of that character's alignment) as long as what he says matches what he knows about the character.

[hamishspence]

Being genuinely altruistic however interferes with the evil alignment.

See the aforementioned "altruistic character who destroys the souls of villains".

"Destroying souls" - as evil as it gets in D&D, going by BoVD.

[Andezzar]

I only said they interfere, I did not say an evil character can never be truly altruistic.

[Tragak]

Being genuinely altruistic however interferes with the evil alignment. There is no problem for a character to say anything about any other character (regardless of that character's alignment) as long as what he says matches what he knows about the character. Having a group of people that you are altruistic towards, however large, doesn't make you non-Evil if you have no qualms about hurting people who aren't in "your" group yet aren't a threat to the people who are.

[hamishspence]

Makes it harder for the PCs to approve of such a character though.

By contrast, Pay Evil Unto Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PayEvilUntoEvil) is close enough to the average adventurer's standard operating procedure, that it's hard for them to be as critical, even when the opponent goes way beyond what the PCs are prepared to do.

[jedipotter]

I disagree with a character being able to be a "good person" with an evil alignment.

Except it happens every day. Just look at the countless ''good people'' that were suddenly found out to be evil, right after they got caught.

Good, by it's nature, is easy too fool. As long as you don't do anything openly Crazy Evil, everyone will assume your good.

And in Lawful societies you don't even need to hide the evil part much, as long as you obey the law. You can dump a whole family on the street as they did not pay their rent, and hide behind the ''sorry, laws says you must pay your rent or else''.

And even better, most ''good people'' are ''good'' in name only. Take the classic: poor, hungry person on the street. So called good person turns their nose up at them, walks past them and into the 10,000 gold a plate charity event for poor people. This person thinks they are good and will be called good by most. Then take the evil person. They walk by an ignore the poor, hungry person too and go have an expensive dinner. Odd that the good and evil person did all most the same things. Maybe one is not exactly the alignment they say they are?

[Andezzar]

I never said that evil people could not be perceived as good, this however does not change the fact that they are evil even before being found out.

Again, D&D has objective, measurable standards for good and evil. How people are perceived, be it because of their deception, incomplete information or simply skewed perception on the observers' part, has no bearing on whether they actually have one or the other trait.

If you go by subjective standards for good and evil, the answer is yes, but that answer will not help as it will vary from observer to observer.

[Astralia123]

Interesting, this thread goes exactly where I intended it to...

Let me try to systemize this discussion.

1. The general idea. The point is not exactly whether such a character is technically possible, but is that he is a mixture of goodness and evil, as well as the obvious fact that people (me, for example) are fascinated by this mixture. Anyway there is a word which I actually like: alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive.


2. What makes a character a "good person"?
As mentioned by many in this thread, we tend to call one who befriend with us a "good person". In my observation, I'd say loyalty alone is sufficient to make readers respect a character, while loyalty itself is not necessarily hallmark of goodness. One more thing, I'm using this phrase more in an everyday sense than as a game term, and thus a "good person" actually means "a person/character who possesses certain combination of good traits/characteristics".
So a "good person" does not necessarily mean a good-alignment character, obviously.

3. What sufficiently makes a character evil?
Hmm I may try continue this topic later...

[Azoth]

I have to say it is all really a matter that will vary from person to person just as alignment opinions vary. To take an earlier example, I do not agree the Richard B. Riddick is Evil.

He is a killer, but every instance of him killing someone has been in self defense, with one exception. Irgun, whom he killed to avenge a friend's death. He manipulates people, by telling them the truth. Usually, his manipulation of others is by revealing certain truths that other parties would prefer be kept secret (e.g. John's morphine addiction, the docking pilot nearly killing everyone to save herself, the meaning of the rain). He intimidates people, usually very poorly with verbal skills and only if alone physically. His combat style suits his advantages, just like everyone else. You don't call everyone with darkvision who fights using stealth and darkness Evil...do you? Really, in the end Richard B. Riddick is a capable survivor who has an philosophy of "Leave me alone, and I will leave you alone. Mess with me at your own risk."

If I remember right, even his original criminal charge that started his murder/jail break/ other crimes snowballing was a false allegation against him.

On the other hand. He fights to the death to defend a child from a mercenary. Risks death to save a child and a priest. He willing spends 10 years on a frozen inhospitable rock to protect a child and priest from legal persecution/processing. Risks his life to rescue said child from an "inescapable" prison. Avenges his friend's murder. Saves the known universe from a tyrant bent on killing all life in it. Saves the life of a man who wants him dead for the wrong reasons. Gives said man closure on his son's death.

Overall Riddick has shown more good and neutral qualities than evil.

[goto124]

Would Richard ping on Detect Evil though?

[hamishspence]

Would Richard ping on Detect Evil though?

If you believe Complete Scoundrel - the answer is Yes, he would. And on Detect Chaos.

It cites Pitch Black rather than Chronicles - one could argue that he was starting off Evil and becoming Neutral.

In-universe, he's called "a different kind of Evil" by the narrator though.

[Telonius]

A healer working in triage, who regularly casts Deathwatch to assist them, would ping as Evil. (Though that has as much to do with the stupidity of Deathwatch being [Evil], as it does with Evil possibly being nice).

[hamishspence]

If you go by Heroes of Horror - they'd eventually go to Neutral alignment - but they wouldn't have to go to Evil - it's possible to balance Evil deeds with Good intentions and remain Neutral.

[TheCrowing1432]

Well In DND.

Good and Evil are tangible forces in the world, rather then metaphysical concepts that they are in the real world.

Usually no one ever sees themselves as being evil.

Now this is all well and good, except for the fact that being evil in DND means you're forced to act a certain way.

Now a LG character might stop and smell the field of pretty flowers, but something turns him evil, he now sets the flowers on fire.

Because he is Evil and that is what evil does. Its a very arbrituary way of doing things.

Now in real life an evil person (such as they are) could just as easilly stop and smell the flowers. But that would be something "Not Evil"

The alignment system is borked. Because its too black and white and there really isnt a grey area.

It tries to make a grey area with the neutral and law/chaos axis, but it just makes everything needlessly difficult.

[Xelbiuj]

I'd say yes.
Alignment comes from the actions, not motive.


Most of us value duty, honor, loyalty so at least on paper, enemy soldiers aren't typically considered evil just because we oppose them, but in d&d the universe keeps score, and wont hand wave away "brutal murders" because of our preference towards the aforementioned values - over not disemboweling a total stranger on an open field.

[Segev]

By definition, no. They can be nice (superficially and/or to those they like). They can be genteel and polite. They can even be generous (when it suits their aims) or selfless (with those about whom they care).

But if they are evil, it is because they do evil things.

Really, you're asking a question that makes as much sense as, "Can something that is wet be a dry object?"

I suppose it could, if "a dry object" had nothing to do with its actual exposure to moisture. But not by the definition used in the same context as the word "wet."

[Psyren]

It depends on how much of them you see. To those close to them, Walking Dead's Governor and Heroes' HRG guy seemed like morally upright, model citizens. But to those who got in their way they were horrible monsters.

If all you see of someone are the good parts, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0750.html) it's easy to form the wrong conclusion about them. (Bonus! That comment applies to two people in that strip.)

[jedipotter]

Usually no one ever sees themselves as being evil.

Not true. It's more accurate to say the evil people that think they are good, will not say they are evil...even as they do great acts of evil. And sure lots of people will lie in public and say they are ''good''.

Tons of evil folks have no problem seeing themselves as evil and being evil.



Now this is all well and good, except for the fact that being evil in DND means you're forced to act a certain way. Now a LG character might stop and smell the field of pretty flowers, but something turns him evil, he now sets the flowers on fire. Because he is Evil and that is what evil does. Its a very arbrituary way of doing things.


That is not ''evil'', that is just ''crazy'' or ''insane''. That is only Crazy Evil.



The alignment system is borked. Because its too black and white and there really isn't a grey area.


Alignment is black and white. But you need definitions and sign posts and ways to rate things. Otherwise everything is gray and just is whatever everyone wants to say or not say is or is not at any time...maybe. You will note the second one does not work so well.....

[thematgreen]

My over-arching villain for my current campaign is a Neutral Evil Lich who was clever enough to earn the love of his people by providing work, support, and the bounty hard work and pride can create. His people know he is a lich and don't care, since they have money, food, homes, and employment, and enough free time to enjoy life. Healthcare is free and schooling is provided to all children. He has not used magic to accomplish this, just a very strong understanding of human nature.

Why is he evil? If you are not one of his people he has no compunction about using parts of you for his magic, he constantly makes war with neighbouring countries, kills his enemies, and his long term plan is to bring the whole of the world under his sway. In other words, if you aren't part of his nation you are nothing to him and he will tear out your soul to make a ghost,and turn your corpse into a zombie for his army.

[Flickerdart]

A good person can't be Evil - the whole point of alignments is that good people are Good and bad people are Evil. However, an Evil person can certainly do good deeds (and abstain from evil deeds, if it is prudent). A volunteer at an orphanage appears to be a good person to those who observe him inattentively, but if he's working there just so he can kidnap children for a cult (even if the opportunity never arises) he is still Evil.

[Andezzar]

Now this is all well and good, except for the fact that being evil in DND means you're forced to act a certain way.

Now a LG character might stop and smell the field of pretty flowers, but something turns him evil, he now sets the flowers on fire.

Because he is Evil and that is what evil does. Its a very arbrituary way of doing things.

Now in real life an evil person (such as they are) could just as easilly stop and smell the flowers. But that would be something "Not Evil"
You have it backwards. The sum of your previous actions determine your current alignment. Alignment does not dictate future actions (with the exception of lycanthorpes and people who fail their save after donning the helmet of opposite alignment). Evil characters are completely free to commit good acts at any time as well as good characters can commit evil deeds at any time.

[hamishspence]

You have it backwards. The sum of your previous actions determine your current alignment.

Yup - with the proviso that some creatures start out with one - Always Evil creatures are "born Evil" despite having committed no actions.

In those cases at least, they're going to start off with the classic "Evil personality traits" (sociopathy, selfishness, sadism, etc) that predispose them toward committing Evil acts. Even these creatures can reform, going by D&D fiction - it's just incredibly rare.

[goto124]

My over-arching villain for my current campaign is a Neutral Evil Lich who was clever enough to earn the love of his people by providing work, support, and the bounty hard work and pride can create. His people know he is a lich and don't care, since they have money, food, homes, and employment, and enough free time to enjoy life. Healthcare is free and schooling is provided to all children. He has not used magic to accomplish this, just a very strong understanding of human nature.

Why is he evil? If you are not one of his people he has no compunction about using parts of you for his magic, he constantly makes war with neighbouring countries, kills his enemies, and his long term plan is to bring the whole of the world under his sway. In other words, if you aren't part of his nation you are nothing to him and he will tear out your soul to make a ghost,and turn your corpse into a zombie for his army.

So... a pragmatic leader who does what works the best? Probably the most sensible way to have a good Evil character, depending on how much leeway a person gets to be good (not Good).

[jedipotter]

So... a pragmatic leader who does what works the best? Probably the most sensible way to have a good Evil character, depending on how much leeway a person gets to be good (not Good).

Maybe not. Alignment does give a basic framework, but it does matter what the person does. An Evil person will do anything to meet a goal, a good person will not. So if you have ten meals, but eleven people to feed, you could kill person number eleven and then have enough food for all. But that is not a good act. So it's a bit more like a ''pragmatic leader who does what works the best in the good public view.''

Good can be quite harsh, so a good/evil person can all ways go there....and then let themselves be talked down and out of it.

[Lord Raziere]

thats a very complicated question.

lets say we have a guy is who acts like a good hero. he goes around doing the normal good deeds for the sake of them, when everything is peaceful he is just like any other person but doing what he can to improve and make the world a better place one little good deed at a time.

but when danger threatens, he suddenly he becomes a complete monster to defend what he holds dear and mercilessly slaughters everyone who would threaten all thats good in the world, tortures minions to find the leader of the threat, lies and so on and basically takes every possible measure to make sure the threat is eliminated completely and will never come back while basically sending out a message not to screw with him or anything he holds dear. EVER....

then goes right back to being a guy who does all the usual goodly stuff in peace without doing anything else evil. lets for a moment forget how unrealistic this person is or whatever. is he evil?

[hamishspence]

thats a very complicated question.

lets say we have a guy is who acts like a good hero. he goes around doing the normal good deeds for the sake of them, when everything is peaceful he is just like any other person but doing what he can to improve and make the world a better place one little good deed at a time.

but when danger threatens, he suddenly he becomes a complete monster to defend what he holds dear and mercilessly slaughters everyone who would threaten all thats good in the world, tortures minions to find the leader of the threat, lies and so on and basically takes every possible measure to make sure the threat is eliminated completely and will never come back while basically sending out a message not to screw with him or anything he holds dear. EVER....

then goes right back to being a guy who does all the usual goodly stuff in peace without doing anything else evil. lets for a moment forget how unrealistic this person is or whatever. is he evil?
Depends on the DM. Some might cite Heroes of Horror as evidence that this kind of character can be "a flexible Neutral", others might say that sufficiently evil deeds, commited without repentance, lock the character into an Evil alignment.

And it's not all that unrealistic - a case could be made that there are a lot of fantasy or sci-fi antiheroes like this.

[Andion Isurand]

I would check out the Touch of Benevolence feat (Champions of Ruin 22).

Any creature of evil alignment can take it.

With it, you still detect as being evil, but you have a 50% chance of ignoring any spell or effect that specifically targets or damages evil creatures.

However, under the "Special" heading, you have to back up the feat with periodic acts of kindness and episodes of inner conflict, as arbitrated by the DM.

[Sam K]

It all depends on what you mean with a "good person".

Evil people can be honorable, diligent, devoted to a cause and very protective of their loved ones. All these are traits that many people would consider traits of a "good person".

But their honor tend to be the kind that demands blood, they work diligently towards frightening results, they are devoted to causes that would make most peoples skin crawl and if they think you are a threat to their family, they will remove you.

There's a difference between "good person" and "Good person", atleast in D&D.

[Astralia123]

It all depends on what you mean with a "good person".

Evil people can be honorable, diligent, devoted to a cause and very protective of their loved ones. All these are traits that many people would consider traits of a "good person".

But their honor tend to be the kind that demands blood, they work diligently towards frightening results, they are devoted to causes that would make most peoples skin crawl and if they think you are a threat to their family, they will remove you.

There's a difference between "good person" and "Good person", atleast in D&D.

And this is what I actually meant at the very beginning...


I would check out the Touch of Benevolence feat (Champions of Ruin 22).

Any creature of evil alignment can take it.

With it, you still detect as being evil, but you have a 50% chance of ignoring any spell or effect that specifically targets or damages evil creatures.

However, under the "Special" heading, you have to back up the feat with periodic acts of kindness and episodes of inner conflict, as arbitrated by the DM.

Thanks for mentioning it, but I guess the designer was looking the alignment system in a different way from most others?

[Astralia123]

thats a very complicated question.

lets say we have a guy is who acts like a good hero. he goes around doing the normal good deeds for the sake of them, when everything is peaceful he is just like any other person but doing what he can to improve and make the world a better place one little good deed at a time.

but when danger threatens, he suddenly he becomes a complete monster to defend what he holds dear and mercilessly slaughters everyone who would threaten all thats good in the world, tortures minions to find the leader of the threat, lies and so on and basically takes every possible measure to make sure the threat is eliminated completely and will never come back while basically sending out a message not to screw with him or anything he holds dear. EVER....

then goes right back to being a guy who does all the usual goodly stuff in peace without doing anything else evil. lets for a moment forget how unrealistic this person is or whatever. is he evil?

Hmm...isn't it a common way to solve the mixture of good and evil? This character always sides with one of the sides (good, evil or neither), and is/can be viewed as psychopathic (debatable, though) to some extent.

I would say this one is not "spicy" enough : P

[lsfreak]

I risk dragging this into a more pedantic alignment debate than this already is, but from Game of Thones you can probably make serious arguments that Tyrion Lannister and Daenerys Targaryan would ping Evil under a D&D system [at least in their show incantations, I haven't read enough of the books to make comment there]. Serious Season 4 spoilers ahead:
On Tyrion's side, you have his treatment of Lancel, indifference to Bronn's violent nature, and especially the murders of Shae and Tywin, among others.
On Dany's side you have some above-and-beyond executions, including burned alive for blood magic, sealed in a vault, and ****ing mass crucifixion.
And while I'm here, the last half of Season 4 reminds us that Ygritte is, in fact, a wildling and the Capital-E Evil that goes along with it.
Qyburn and Jaqen H'Ghar would almost certainly ping Evil as well. But none of the four are villains, the last two minor characters seem really close to what the OP is talking about, and Jaqen H'Ghar and Dany (for the majority of her story, at least) seem pretty straightfowardly presented as heroic, in some cases even while doing things that are probably Evil acts.

[I have no particular stake in identifying them as a particular alignment, just wanted to point them out, and will not be continuing the conversation in favor of keeping the thread from devolving into back-and-forth over particular characters.]

[Flickerdart]

I risk dragging this into a more pedantic alignment debate than this already is, but from Game of Thones you can probably make serious arguments that Tyrion Lannister and Daenerys Targaryan would ping Evil under a D&D system [at least in their show incantations, I haven't read enough of the books to make comment there].
Why does this surprise you? GoT is famous for being a Gray vs Gray world with remarkably few genuinely good people who survive past the chapter where they're introduced. Though I'd peg Tyrion as Neutral (he commits evil acts, sure, but bumping off people he doesn't like isn't his MO), Dany is definitely near the deeper end of the alignment pool.

[Vhaidara]

I actually posted my theoretical alignment distribution for GoT a while ago. Something like
40% LN, 40% LE, 5% N, 5% NE, 2.5% LG, 2.5% NG, 5% split among CG, CN, and CE (named characters only)

[Ssalarn]

I guess most people here would agree that a "good person" does not have to be good alignment.
A guy could be either honest, trustworthy or even noble in some ways while being solid lawful neutral. And such a character can and sometimes does serve a evil cause (like a knight of an evil empire or some sort).
This does not prevent the players or readers (depends on what media we are talking about but mostly not much difference) from liking or respecting such a character, so hopefully you will get what I mean by "good person".

But now I wonder could such a character be undoubtfully evil alignment, while still being a "good person".


To specify what I'm looking for, I'm expecting either a character idea that is complexed enough to make a challenging roleplay theme, or an NPC that is charimatic enough to trouble my players when he stands in their way.
I can't say what makes up a "good person", but as I mentioned before, a novel reader tend to like/respect such a character, even if he is a villian.
I'm not really talking about "charismatic villians", though sometimes I guess a character can be both.



Well my mind might be too fogged to come up with sth clear enough :)

Maybe like a Jaime Lannister type? I mean, the guy betrays his vows and murders his (admittedly crazy and evil) king, screws his sister, commits adultery with his married sister (pretty sure adultery and incest are two separate sins), tosses a kid out a window, murders his relative, basically rapes his sister on his son's funeral bier (once more, I consider this a separate sin from just screwing his sister), and yet somehow you still kind of find yourself liking him by the current point in the books. I'd peg him somewhere in the vicinity of lawful - neutral evil, though he does seem to be trying to work towards an alignment change.

So, maybe a lawful evil villain who has a perfectly rational (at least the way he presents it) reason for doing what he does, tries to do the right thing (or at least the thing that makes him look good) often enough that his reputation isn't completely one-sided, but whose basic nature runs counter to most of the basic precepts that make up the concept of "good".

[MukkTB]

I feel like we're talking about anti-heroes and anti-villians here. You can mix bad and good two ways. Either they're a decent human being striving towards antagonistic ends, or they're a terrible sack of feces but trying to accomplish something worthwhile.

For example in Dr. Horrible's sing along blog, Dr. Horrible is a decent human being in many ways. I'd be pretty happy to share a beer with him. However what he eventually accomplishes is pretty terrible. Depending on your view of morality you might assess him in a few different ways. Dr. Horrible is a particularly good example because enough of his psychology is visible that you can see why he holds some of the beliefs that he does. Of course you can also see that movie as a 'start of darkness' style theme. A decent guy on the path to evil.

If you want an NPC to interact with your players I would suggest something like this: The NPC is helpful to the party. He pays them well, and provides timely assistance. In exchange he asks the PCs to look the other way or maybe even help him when he commits minor acts of evil. He always has good reasons why something should be done, or why it isn't really hurting anyone.

[thematgreen]

So... a pragmatic leader who does what works the best? Probably the most sensible way to have a good Evil character, depending on how much leeway a person gets to be good (not Good).

Yes, but he doesn't care about his people at all, they are a means to an end. There is little crime because any criminals are forced into the army, via Ghost/Zombie shenanigans. He is just smart enough to know that a happy people is a people that is unlikely to rise against him. Hence when the adventuring party tried to get the people turned against him.

The group had accomplished some good deeds, hit level 5 and were feeling cocky. They spread rumors of their deeds, and were just murder hobos. When they decided to kill the Lich and "free" the people from his "Tyranical" rule the townsfolk instead let the magistrate know and the Lich showed up personally the next morning, surrounding the inn with his police force and forcibly killed the group.

Later the group got some revenge, since they got to kill their old characters, all raised as Juju Zombies.

They never defeated the Lich or broke his hold on the territory and even now that group talks about going back.

[goto124]

Wait till the group realises 'okay, how do we run a country?', and watch it fall into ruin... :P

It's how I imagine evil to work IRL- lack of morality doesn't mean deriving pleasure from kicking puppies, it means having many more options open to you, no matter how immoral. Why care about the dying soldiers? The whole country's at stake, and it's more expensive to heal them than to get more soldiers!

[SangoProduction]

May or may not have already been said, but...undead. There you could be saving the world from bahamet, never take up resources from any of the populace, and even hold the entire world on your shoulders to keep it from shattering, and killing millions of innocents, but you'd still be evil. Because reasons. Undead ladies and gentlemen!
Or being a demon/devil. Then you are even more screwed because you are even the [Evil] subtype!

[Yael]

Most of the time, Lawful Evil characters I run or face do have good intentions, but society just can't be handled with a good face, so as Victor Doom did, forcing people to do X thing for their own good would apply as an Evil "good" character.

[hamishspence]

May or may not have already been said, but...undead. There you could be saving the world from bahamet, never take up resources from any of the populace, and even hold the entire world on your shoulders to keep it from shattering, and killing millions of innocents, but you'd still be evil. Because reasons. Undead ladies and gentlemen!

Some Undead can start out of any alignment (ghosts spring to mind) - and alignment change is always an option.

[Andezzar]

May or may not have already been said, but...undead. There you could be saving the world from bahamet, never take up resources from any of the populace, and even hold the entire world on your shoulders to keep it from shattering, and killing millions of innocents, but you'd still be evil. Because reasons. Undead ladies and gentlemen!
Or being a demon/devil. Then you are even more screwed because you are even the [Evil] subtype!Not quite. Undead and outsiders with the [Evil] subtype will always ping as evil on Detect Evil, but their alignment is determined by their actions just like any other character.

Remember Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin? She pings as good, evil, lawful and chaotic, despite being of Lawful Good alignment.

[Sam K]

Maybe like a Jaime Lannister type? I mean, the guy betrays his vows and murders his (admittedly crazy and evil) king, screws his sister, commits adultery with his married sister (pretty sure adultery and incest are two separate sins), tosses a kid out a window, murders his relative, basically rapes his sister on his son's funeral bier (once more, I consider this a separate sin from just screwing his sister), and yet somehow you still kind of find yourself liking him by the current point in the books. I'd peg him somewhere in the vicinity of lawful - neutral evil, though he does seem to be trying to work towards an alignment change.

So, maybe a lawful evil villain who has a perfectly rational (at least the way he presents it) reason for doing what he does, tries to do the right thing (or at least the thing that makes him look good) often enough that his reputation isn't completely one-sided, but whose basic nature runs counter to most of the basic precepts that make up the concept of "good".

I would say Jaime (early S1 and 2 anyway) is the best example of functional CHAOTIC evil.

The guys entire character is about breaking the rules. His dad wants him to become the new lord and patriarch of hous Lannister, so he joins the kingsguard (this is, granted, given more focus in the books). He breaks his wovs as a kingsguard to kill the king. And to father children. With his sister. Who is married to the king he's suppose to be guarding. And he throws a kid out the window, and the kid is the son of his host, so there's probably some hospitality thing being broken too. Even his relationship with Tyrion seems to be based partilly on a will to spite authority: his father loathes the dwarf, so obviously Jaime has to protect him.

His father, his family name, his king, his oath, the church, the gods, tradition, hospitality... the guy can't even be said to have a code of honor in the first seasons, unless his code specifies killing kids and being a jerk (that WOULD be a pretty cool code...) He doesn't just break the rules when it's convenient, he seems to be hell-bent on taking risks just to see if he can get away with it. He's ran almost completely on his own passions, and he gets away with it because of his family name and martial skill.

But because he's actually a pretty well written character, this doesn't mean he has to go around stabbing everything he sees. He still has some love (hurhurhur) for his family. He is capable of some honor (for example, he would prefer to fight Ned Stark one on one instead of ganging up on him). He's smart enough to understand that while he may not want to rule his house, the name offers him some protection; he doesn't officially turn his back on his father until late in the show.

[RoboEmperor]

Yes.

If you make a deal with devils, you become lawful evil permanently, until you go through some sort of redemption thing. So no matter how good you are, you will always be lawful evil.

Give fiendish codex II a read, there's also something about corruption/evil karma, so if you torture someone, you will be evil forever until you attempt redemption, even if you save a million orphanages.

[13th Nemesis]

Powder Keg of Justice (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Powder_Keg_of_Justice)

EVIL or Ends Justify the Means/Greater Good?

[Roiyal-T]

I guess most people here would agree that a "good person" does not have to be good alignment.
A guy could be either honest, trustworthy or even noble in some ways while being solid lawful neutral. And such a character can and sometimes does serve a evil cause (like a knight of an evil empire or some sort).
This does not prevent the players or readers (depends on what media we are talking about but mostly not much difference) from liking or respecting such a character, so hopefully you will get what I mean by "good person".

But now I wonder could such a character be undoubtfully evil alignment, while still being a "good person".


To specify what I'm looking for, I'm expecting either a character idea that is complexed enough to make a challenging roleplay theme, or an NPC that is charimatic enough to trouble my players when he stands in their way.
I can't say what makes up a "good person", but as I mentioned before, a novel reader tend to like/respect such a character, even if he is a villian.
I'm not really talking about "charismatic villians", though sometimes I guess a character can be both.



Well my mind might be too fogged to come up with sth clear enough :)


Shortest answer I can think of would be,
As long as whatever they do benefits them in any way. Sure I'll help you across the street I'm going that way too, sure I'll rescue the cat, I could use the work out... as opposed to because it makes them feel "good"

Alternatively I hate to bring out TV in this but Dexter,
Murders people, great guy...
Almost every Serial Killer was a "good person" outwardly, that is the best bait/camo.
Bateman being another

Dexter though tried to be "good" by squelching his urges but ultimately had to give in.

[hamishspence]

there's also something about corruption/evil karma, so if you torture someone, you will be evil forever until you attempt redemption, even if you save a million orphanages.

As written, it's the character's afterlife destination that becomes fixed rather than their alignment.

There's also the "if you die genuinely repentant, you become a Hellbred instead of going straight to Baator" thing.

[LoyalPaladin]

Wait... are you trying to tell me there are alignments other than Lawful Good?

[Segev]

Wait... are you trying to tell me there are alignments other than Lawful Good?

Yes, my dear and loyal paladin, there are. Many of them are still people worth protecting from the few that are not.

[LoyalPaladin]

Yes, my dear and loyal paladin, there are. Many of them are still people worth protecting from the few that are not.
Yes... I must save those that wallow in the murky depths of Neutral and Evil! With Torm as our shepherd and I as his staff, we shall guide the lost sheep of the world back to the top of the alignment chart. (Top left, preferably.)

[Vhaidara]

Wait... are you trying to tell me there are alignments other than Lawful Good?

Yes. There is CE, the alignment that you smite all day.

[ObnoxiousKender]

Powder Keg of Justice (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Powder_Keg_of_Justice)

EVIL or Ends Justify the Means/Greater Good?

This is a good point.
Back when I was playing Dragon Lance there was a NPC on the side of the Dragon Army (The bad guys for those who don't know.) who honestly thought that the domination of the world by the Dragon Army's was the right way to achieve world peace. When this was brought up, our party Cleric asked what the NPCs alignment was. The DM said that the NPC was lawful good, if I remember correctly. We never figured out if she was simply crazy, dominated by someone/thing or was just a The Ends Justify the Means situation.
In my opinion that is what is really dangerous about any of the lawful alignments. (especially lawful good.) Lawful characters tend to be so Goal driven (world peace, save the women and children.) that HOW they accomplish their goal is completely forgotten or just flat out ignored. That is of course the most extreme example.

[LoyalPaladin]

The DM said that the NPC was lawful good, if I remember correctly.
Hello, Tenebrous. This was later amended by our DM. She was originally Lawful Neutral, but a verbal mishap by our DM left us all wondering how she could be the big LG. After she stabbed Falk (our wizard and also her brother), her alignment sunk to the deep end of the alignment pool. Lawful alignments can be a really slippery slope.

[ObnoxiousKender]

Hello, Tenebrous. This was later amended by our DM. She was originally Lawful Neutral, but a verbal mishap by our DM left us all wondering how she could be the big LG. After she stabbed Falk (our wizard and also her brother), her alignment sunk to the deep end of the alignment pool. Lawful alignments can be a really slippery slope.

When on earth did that happen? O.o I don't remember him saying that.
But I guess her alignment would have sunk to the evil part of lawful due to that. That makes more sense than her being lawful good. However my point still stands.
It would have been hilarious if she had been lawful good though, because SMITE EVIL wouldn't have worked. :D z
Would have worked on me though...