Alignment related questions

[Th3N3xtGuy]

Hello again people

Question 1: If a character does good(morally) to make themselves feel better because they feel guilty about say being the evil overlord wasabi's right hand man. Are they good alignment or evil because they are self serving regardless of end results? I'm floating more towards evil.

Question 2: If character fights demon, devils, ghosts, etc to get a chance to learn about their magic and secrets but in the process saves lives. Are they evil, neutral or good? I'm thinking evil since again its self serving.

[frogglesmash]

First off self serving =/= evil. Behaving in a self serving manner is only evil if it is purposefully detrimental to others and even than there's a fair amount of grey area.

Situation 1: If they are doing good for guilt related reasons then they could easily be considered good, if they also happen to be doing evil deeds at the behest of their overlord then that would put them at neutral, though there's a still a fair amount of grey area depending on the severity of the good and evil actions.

Situation 2: Assuming the character's motivations are 100% not altruistic, and they don't have a habit of sacrificing people to their dark lord for greater power then this is is very neutral behaviour. The aforementioned character is no different than a mercenary who fights for coin.

[SowZ]

The second guy certainly isn't evil if he isn't hurting anyone.

The first guy isn't good, I'd say, though he may be lawful neutral. He still benefits from an evil regime and keeps it propped up. Depending on how bad the kingdom is in its human rights violations and what his personal duties are, there is a good chance the first guy is evil no matter how guilty he feels. That would put him in the territory of evil, but might have a real shot at redemption down the road.

[Xuldarinar]

It is important to remember somethings when it comes to D&D/PF alignments.

An evil act is an evil act no matter for what reason it is done.
A good act, if I'm not mistaken, depends upon not only good actions but good motivations.
As a result, within the framework presented, one would think the neutral and evil alignments would be exceedingly more common than the good.


For instance,

A character casts a spell that uses malevolent energies, but does it to save a building full of orphans. It is considered an evil act.

A character tortures an evil person to get vital information for saving the kingdom. It is considered an evil act.

However, the reverse isn't always true. For example, at least within the confines of pathfinder, an antipaladin can do things considered good provided they do not do them altruistically. They must have something to gain from them, they must have their own reasons.

So, a character charges into a burning building and heroically saves someone, but does so because they wanted good PR, or realized the person inside would get them connections, or they set the fire and saving someone was both a good cover and to make sure the one they wanted dead was in fact dead. It isn't necessarily a good act anymore.


That being said:

1: They are doing good, but their reasoning behind it is strictly to feel better about themselves because of their position with evil. I have to wonder why they are the person's right hand man. The person isn't unapologetically evil, but they may be evil in alignment or at the very least neutral on that axis. Repentant, not because it is the right thing but because they feel some guilt for their deeds and associations and doing some good helps them sleep better at night.

2: Saving lives is secondary to their actions. It isn't an intended effect but something that simply occurred in their selfish desire. Evil, maybe neutral. If they start using the secrets, particularly if they depend upon malevolent energies, then certainly evil.

[Telonius]

A good rule of thumb for Good/Evil, is: "How far out of their way is this character going to help/harm people?" Are they taking some sort of risk to help or harm someone? If they aren't sticking their neck out one way or the other, they're most likely Neutral. It gets slightly muddier when it comes to being part of an organization whose goals are Good or Evil, but the organization's alignment tends to reflect the individuals comprising it. Over time, it would be a pretty rare thing (though not completely impossible) for a person not to commit Good or Evil acts while being part of such an organization.

For number 1, it kind of depends on the sequence of things. Is he do-gooding while still being the evil overlord's right hand man? Or is he the former right hand man who's trying to make up for his past misdeeds? If it's during, then he's almost certainly not Good, and almost certainly Evil. It would be another matter if that "moral good" thing he's doing is trying to bring down the regime from the inside; that's taking a pretty significant risk. But if he's just giving to the Widows of Baron Von Evil's Opposition Fund, that's not going to cut it. But, if he's trying to atone after the fact...? He wouldn't necessarily be Evil, but his behavior would have to change pretty significantly.

For number 2, I don't think there's enough information to tell the alignment just from that. It's certainly possible to maintain an Evil alignment while fighting either Demons or Devils. (See: Blood War). As it is, it's not going out of your way in order to help or hurt someone; the act would generally be Neutral. (If he's torturing them to death, or something like that, that's something else).

[A Tad Insane]

1: Too little information. How and how much is he doing jobs for his lord? If he is doing just good deeds and isn't neither directly helping or harming the evil regime, he's totally good. To frame it another way, he's helping people for nothing other than the knowledge he made their lives better, and isn't planning on starting a liquid joy farm.

2: Neutral until he starts eating babies and virgins to fuel his power. He's not harming anyone but the actively malicious, but the motivation, and therfore the kinds of jobs he'd take on and how he'd do them, are selfish, though beneficial to others

[Mystral]

Hello again people

Question 1: If a character does good(morally) to make themselves feel better because they feel guilty about say being the evil overlord wasabi's right hand man. Are they good alignment or evil because they are self serving regardless of end results? I'm floating more towards evil.

Sounds like a neutral character working a villain for reasons and trying to alleviate or balance that out.


Question 2: If character fights demon, devils, ghosts, etc to get a chance to learn about their magic and secrets but in the process saves lives. Are they evil, neutral or good? I'm thinking evil since again its self serving.

Okay, just to clear something up: When someone does something for himself, it's not automatically evil. Doing things for yourself is neutral, the evil part comes into play when you exploit or hurt others. So in this case, most likely neutral.

[SowZ]

If the second in command over an evil regime isn't accountable for the evil of his government, no one is. I find the argument that he is probably neutral none too compelling.

[atemu1234]

If the second in command over an evil regime isn't accountable for the evil of his government, no one is. I find the argument that he is probably neutral none too compelling.

Yeah- if you're aware of it and capable of changing it, you most definitely are not neutral.

[Mystral]

It very much depends on the Situation.

Is the guy under a geas? Does the BBEG hold his familiy hostage? Is he trying to do his best and mitigate the damage of his boss, but unwilling to face him? Does he honestly believe that what the BBEG is doing is for the best in the long run?

[SowZ]

It very much depends on the Situation.

Is the guy under a geas? Does the BBEG hold his familiy hostage? Is he trying to do his best and mitigate the damage of his boss, but unwilling to face him? Does he honestly believe that what the BBEG is doing is for the best in the long run?

The first and second are reasonable. The third example is cowardice and doesn't erase the evil since he is clearly benefitting from the situation. "Just following orders," is hardly a good excuse for a foot soldier, certainly not the man second in command of the entire nation. The fourth is certainly an example of an evil person, because he thinks running a tyrannical regime is for the best. Most dictators and despots think their rule adds stability. Few people actually consider themselves evil.

[Th3N3xtGuy]

There seems to be confusion on the first one, the hypothetical character FORMERLY served evil as his go to man and now does good in the present to sleep better at night but not because its the right thing to do.

The second one motivations are self serving but will save people but knowledge acquisition comes first.

[Segev]

It's worth noting that feeling guilty is not something evil people are prone to doing. "I feel bad every time my evil boss uses his power to hurt people, because I help prop him up," indicates that he probably leans less evil than his boss. He may even be neutral, especially if he does what good deeds he can to try to "make up" for it. The more good he goes out of his way to do, the more firmly neutral he is. As long as he faithfully does his job to support the evil regime, however, he will also do some evil directly, himself, as well as remain guilty for actively opposing Good efforts to overthrow it. He cannot rise above Neutral without betraying his employer or quitting his job to oppose this order.

A Lawful Neutral person who ached to be Lawful leaning towards good (without being full on LG) might hold to his position, execute his duties faithfully, and be quietly pleased as the order is disturbed. He may even engage in LE-style politicking to eventually replace his master as overlord, and then try to change things for the better. But he's LN, not LG, because he won't break the system; he will follow it faithfully.

[Telonius]

Thanks for the clarifications! Based on that, I'd say both cases are Neutral actions.

(There may be other parts of each character that sway their alignments one way or the other; but these wouldn't).

[Flickerdart]

Barring any other information, I would say the first character is actually Good. He feels bad about being the Overlord's right hand man, but does he actually do anything evil? Maybe he himself is benevolent, always smuggling people out of the country when the overlord orders their execution, that kind of thing, and simply believes that trying to take down the evil overlord would cause more harm than the stability of his rule brings. Or he's gathering a resistance, but the time is not yet right.

The second guy is Good because killing Evil creatures is Good (thanks, BoED!).

[SowZ]

Barring any other information, I would say the first character is actually Good. He feels bad about being the Overlord's right hand man, but does he actually do anything evil? Maybe he himself is benevolent, always smuggling people out of the country when the overlord orders their execution, that kind of thing, and simply believes that trying to take down the evil overlord would cause more harm than the stability of his rule brings. Or he's gathering a resistance, but the time is not yet right.

The second guy is Good because killing Evil creatures is Good (thanks, BoED!).

Or maybe he just feels bad about it and helps people when there is no risk to him and lives a life of luxury on the backs of slaves and murdered citizens. There's not really enough info.

[Telonius]

The second guy is Good because killing Evil creatures is Good (thanks, BoED!).


I approve of this interpretation.

... and more evidence accrues that BoED is actually a hoax perpetrated by Baator. :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

It's BoVD that takes the "killing Always Evil creatures, even for profit alone, isn't murder, and is never Evil" tack.

BoED hammers home that, even with Evil creatures, you need Just Cause as well as Good Intentions (and a certain amount of discrimination - killing evil noncombatants in warfare is not OK).

[Shackel]

I'd probably say the first guy is Lawful Evil, leaning towards Lawful Neutral. He's not going good deeds for anyone but himself, but, he does feel bad about it. It's not that he wants to be good, it's just that he doesn't want to be evil, but I think overall his selfish desires concerning it means he's just not there yet.

[TheIronGolem]

There seems to be confusion on the first one, the hypothetical character FORMERLY served evil as his go to man and now does good in the present to sleep better at night but not because its the right thing to do.

That doesn't make sense. If doing good helps him sleep at night, it's presumably because that's the right thing to do. Or at least, that he believes it to be the right thing to do. Why else would it salve his conscience?

The only way I could imagine that not being the case is if there's some kind of external force artificially enforcing a relationship between his actions and his mental/emotional state, like if he was under a curse that causes him horrible anguish if he hasn't recently saved any orphans or something.

[Th3N3xtGuy]

That doesn't make sense. If doing good helps him sleep at night, it's presumably because that's the right thing to do. Or at least, that he believes it to be the right thing to do. Why else would it salve his conscience?

The only way I could imagine that not being the case is if there's some kind of external force artificially enforcing a relationship between his actions and his mental/emotional state, like if he was under a curse that causes him horrible anguish if he hasn't recently saved any orphans or something.

The point was this guy is not doing it because its morally correct/right thing to do but to not feel as guilty for his past. He is doing it sate his guilt not because its right.

[Th3N3xtGuy]

Barring any other information, I would say the first character is actually Good. He feels bad about being the Overlord's right hand man, but does he actually do anything evil? Maybe he himself is benevolent, always smuggling people out of the country when the overlord orders their execution, that kind of thing, and simply believes that trying to take down the evil overlord would cause more harm than the stability of his rule brings. Or he's gathering a resistance, but the time is not yet right.

The second guy is Good because killing Evil creatures is Good (thanks, BoED!).

Under that logic a demon is good for killing a devil.

[TheIronGolem]

The point was this guy is not doing it because its morally correct/right thing to do but to not feel as guilty for his past. He is doing it sate his guilt not because its right.

You just restated what I responded to. Therefore, my previous response also applies to what you just said here: the reason it sates his guilt is because it's the right thing to do. The mere fact that he has any guilt to absolve is an indication that he wants to do the right thing. If he didn't, then doing good and helping people wouldn't make him feel better.

If this guy is evil, then so is anyone else who ever tries to atone for anything. Come to think of it, so is someone who has nothing to atone for, but simply does good because he likes the feeling of helping people.

[SowZ]

You just restated what I responded to. Therefore, my previous response also applies to what you just said here: the reason it sates his guilt is because it's the right thing to do. The mere fact that he has any guilt to absolve is an indication that he wants to do the right thing. If he didn't, then doing good and helping people wouldn't make him feel better.

If this guy is evil, then so is anyone else who ever tries to atone for anything. Come to think of it, so is someone who has nothing to atone for, but simply does good because he likes the feeling of helping people.

It isn't the fact that he feels guilty. It is the fact that he is second in command of a horribly horrendous government. I doubt you would give the second in command of a RL tyrannical government a pass because he felt bad and volunteered at a Children's Hospital.

If this guy isn't accountable for the horrible deeds of his government, no one is ever accountable for anything a government does.

[TheIronGolem]

It isn't the fact that he feels guilty. It is the fact that he is second in command of a horribly horrendous government. I doubt you would give the second in command of a RL tyrannical government a pass because he felt bad and volunteered at a Children's Hospital.

If this guy isn't accountable for the horrible deeds of his government, no one is ever accountable for anything a government does.

Whether he's accountable for his government's actions (he is) in the past is an entirely separate question from whether his current actions are evil in nature (they aren't).

[Segev]

If he were Evil through and through, he probably wouldn't feel guilty for his evil deeds. That doesn't mean he's NOT evil, but it means he's not irredeemable. He's striving hard to be neutral, though his willing complicity in ongoing evil (when he has no intention of ever bringing it to an end, and is not working towards that goal) means neutral is the best to which he can aspire without changing his life. The amount of evil for which he is directly responsible combined with the overall amount of evil he is willing to condone weighs against the amount of good he is able and willing to do to make up for it in determining whether he's neutral or evil.

There's also the question of whether he's personally crossed any moral event horizons.

[SowZ]

Whether he's accountable for his government's actions (he is) in the past is an entirely separate question from whether his current actions are evil in nature (they aren't).

He is still currently the second in command of the government. Feeling bad does not wipe that away.

[TheIronGolem]

He is still currently the second in command of the government.

No, he's not. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19436733&postcount=12)

[nijineko]

first off, you need to define good, moral, and evil.


Hello again people

Question 1: If a character does good(morally) to make themselves feel better because they feel guilty about say being the evil overlord wasabi's right hand man. Are they good alignment or evil because they are self serving regardless of end results? I'm floating more towards evil.

if they continue to make evil choices, they are still evil, even if a few acts happen to benefit someone. one cannot start atoning for evil choices until they are committed to no longer committing evil choices, and act to counter not only their past evils, but present and future potential for evil as well; even then it will take time for the alignment to shift as they resist making evil choices, and start making themselves do good choices.


Question 2: If character fights demon, devils, ghosts, etc to get a chance to learn about their magic and secrets but in the process saves lives. Are they evil, neutral or good? I'm thinking evil since again its self serving.

completely irrelevant to alignment, actually. saving lives does not automatically equal good. killing things does not automatically equal evil or good.

[SowZ]

No, he's not. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19436733&postcount=12)


Ahh. Well, in that case, it could go either way. He should probably try and redeem the specific evils he committed, rather than just do good in general, if he wishes to be Good.

By RAW, Good and Evil is kind of a silly 'Fable' style system so his alignment will depend on how long he has been doing good deeds since his change of heart and how many good 'points' he has accrued.

[Yahzi]

I try to map alignment onto morality this way: everyone knows what being good is, all that changes is who you are good to. I.e., how wide is the circle of people you consider worthy of moral consideration?

NG: everyone
LG: everyone who plays by the rules
CG: all your peers (friends, family, fellow citizens, etc.)
LE: anyone who can profit you
CE: anyone you are scared of
NE: no one

In this system it is perfectly possible for a CG person work for a bad guy - as long as the bad guy doesn't expect him to hurt people he likes.

[hamishspence]

Using that system, you could have CG or LG characters doing truly vile things to "the enemy" or "criminals who don't play by the rules of society" - which doesn't really go well with "Good" in general.

[RedMage125]

Hello again people

Question 1: If a character does good(morally) to make themselves feel better because they feel guilty about say being the evil overlord wasabi's right hand man. Are they good alignment or evil because they are self serving regardless of end results? I'm floating more towards evil.

Question 2: If character fights demon, devils, ghosts, etc to get a chance to learn about their magic and secrets but in the process saves lives. Are they evil, neutral or good? I'm thinking evil since again its self serving.

By the RAW:

Answer 1: Neutral. As per the DMG page 134 'Indecisiveness Indicates Neutrality'. A character who does Good deeds to appease his conscience over the Evil he is a part of is still doing both, and is wishy-washy at that.

Answer 2: Neutral. As per the PHB, pages 104 & 105. 'Neutral characters think of Good as better than Evil -after all [they] would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, [they are] not personally committed to upholding good in any kind of abstract or universal way'. Neutral characters are somewhat self-serving, but not to the point that it harms others. "Whatever floats your boat and doesn't sink mine" is a very Neutral standpoint. 'Neutral characters are committed to others through personal relationships'. Making sacrifices to help the ones you personally care about (such and friends, family or loved ones) does not make you Good. And trying to improve yourself and your knowledge of magic and secrets is not Evil, unless you are willing to kill or harm innocents to do it. The Book of Vile Darkness states, in the section about "The Nature of Evil" that killing beings of ineffable, irredeemable evil (such as demons and devils) is a Good act.

Anecdote pursuant to Question 2: Clain Windsong is an Elven Bard, and he is Chaotic Neutral. He's a free spirit, and he loves wandering the countryside. He wants to write the greatest heroic epic EVER, and be a part of that adventure so he can chronicle it first-hand. He also knows tat the best stories are about champions of Good fighting terrible Evil. In an adventuring party, he eagerly jumps at quest opportunities to save villages, rescue damsels, or slay dragons...but not because he actually personally cares about helping people. He wants the fame, the excitement. He wants to leave the world a better place than he found it, but his personal reasons for doing so are a bit selfish. His attitudes towards women are along the lines of "love 'em and leave 'em", and he is completely ambivalent to the illegitimate children he leave in his wake. After all, "No one writes epic ballads about responsible fathers who stay at home raising their children".

This is a Chaotic Neutral character (who isn't using CN as an excuse to be either "diet evil" or "I'm gonna act crazy and random") who works well in a party of Good characters. He'll never actually become Good, because his attitudes and beliefs are so firmly wrapped up in the glory he seeks. Likewise, he's not so selfish as to ever harm others for his personal satisfaction (unless you count broken hearts in his wake). He wants to be a hero...he just lacks the genuine desire to help others for it's own sake.