The stairway to heaven is built with bad intentions

[Naez]

I've had many debates among my group about doing bad things for good reasons and how that would affect alignment and such but it did bring me to the idea of an evil character in a mostly good party.
Would they be able to do good things for bad reasons without majorly affecting their alignment?

Say you save a town. Then lead them to revolt against the government for being weak and ineffective, and supplant yourself or a puppet under your control to start your tyrannical reign.

Or say you give save someone from starving in the streets. On the condition they become your slave.

Or showing mercy to an enemy. Because you know allowing them to live will spread the stories of the atrocities you performed on their allies.

Edited for extra evil.

[Flickerdart]

Revolution is Chaotic. Offering someone a contract is Lawful.

[OldTrees1]

It really depends on your DM's position on how morality works in game.

Fairly commonly morality is viewed as a test of a character's ability to be good. This is the model where good intentions AND good deeds are both needed for something to be good but for something to be evil it only needs evil intentions OR evil deeds. This is the "road to hell is paved with good intentions" model.

However another common perspective is that alignment describes tendencies. This model is where the moral character of an action(or a character) is the average of the moral character of the intentions and deeds involved. This results in a heavy neutral bias.


I personally view morality as a test IRL and thus I use the first model when I DM.

[Heliomance]

For a while, I've had a character idea I wanted to play - a fey Paladin, who is the epitome of Lawful Good not because of any actual moral qualms, but because that's the role they've decided to play. So they'd save orphans and hunt evil and such not because they believe it needs to be done, but because That's What A Paladin Does. I think it could be quite entertaining.

[Lalliman]

The problem with alignments is that the game treats them unrealistically, with good and evil being rules of nature rather than nebulous concepts created by the minds of mankind. I like to stay away from them as much as possible as a result.

But if we're dealing with the good ol' black and white system anyways, i'd say those actions are mostly evil. Of course, it depends on what you plan to do once the government is overthrown, how you treat your new slave, or who these people that you massacred are. An evil character doesn't have to kick every dog he sees just because he can, is what i'm saying.

[Adam Meyers]

I once wanted to play a sorcerer, and came up with a funny backstory of him being raised by a Lich and currently being in his teenage rebellious stage; since his father is a megalomaniac super-villain, he's rebelling by being an adventurer. The idea was a guy who wants to be good but has been raised by a villain and keeps committing atrocities in his attempt to do it.

I never got to play this character, but he keeps growing in my mind as I keep playing 'what would he do in this situation' games with myself.

It would depend on the GM if a character who's trying to champion good through evil means would come out Neutral or Evil, but he totally wants to beat the bad guys, he just sees nothing wrong with using slavery, genocide, torture, etc. to do it.

[Local_Jerk]

For a while, I've had a character idea I wanted to play - a fey Paladin, who is the epitome of Lawful Good not because of any actual moral qualms, but because that's the role they've decided to play. So they'd save orphans and hunt evil and such not because they believe it needs to be done, but because That's What A Paladin Does. I think it could be quite entertaining.

So basically Scion from Worm.
Considering how that ended, i'd say that your character isn't actually, you know, Good.

[Taveena]

I've heard one interesting thought exercise, which claims that a sociopath, with no compunctions against evil, is all the MORE to be lauded for altruism. Their ethics are entirely untainted by emotion and are nothing but a product of their entirely conscious choice.

[Heliomance]

So basically Scion from Worm.
Considering how that ended, i'd say that your character isn't actually, you know, Good.

Not really. He wasn't doing good because he was playing a part, he was doing good because he had no purpose in life, and someone suggested he try it. It was a fairly aimless "well, I suppose I might as well" sort of thing.

No, I'm thinking more like the story-driven Fair Folk from Exalted. The character is playing the part of being a Paladin because that's the story they want to tell. They're utterly committed to doing Good - just, not for the sake of being Good. They're committed to doing Good because they are utterly committed to playing the part of a Paladin, and Paladins are Good. In a lot of cases it would be fairly indistinguishable from the real thing, but it would lead to interesting quirks like being excited when the Impossible Moral Quandary turns up, rather than being torn and distraught, because dealing with Impossible Moral Quandaries is Part Of Being A Paladin.

It would let you play a lot of the cheesy Knight in Shining Armour tropes dead straight - he'd be the unbelievably wholesome saviour archetype, who boldly strides forward to save the day Because It's The Right Thing To Do, and who would have a serious but compassionate talk with the party necromancer about how I'm Very Disappointed In You, Consorting With Those Evil Spirits. No-one is actually that perfect, so normally that archetype is ridiculous - but because you're not playing a Paladin, you're playing a character who's playing at being a Paladin, it could work. It would be amazing.

...the more I think about this, the more I want to play them. They'd call themselves Sir Roderick, despite being female, and speak in an artificially deep voice, because the Knight in Shining Armour is always a man. They'd pretty much have to have a pure white charger, I think, and wield a greatsword.

[Nifft]

Not really. He wasn't doing good because he was playing a part, he was doing good because he had no purpose in life, and someone suggested he try it. It was a fairly aimless "well, I suppose I might as well" sort of thing. Also because someone told hm that doing good would make him feel better. When it didn't, well, a lot of plot happened.


No, I'm thinking more like the story-driven Fair Folk from Exalted. The character is playing the part of being a Paladin because that's the story they want to tell. They're utterly committed to doing Good - just, not for the sake of being Good. They're committed to doing Good because they are utterly committed to playing the part of a Paladin, and Paladins are Good. In a lot of cases it would be fairly indistinguishable from the real thing, but it would lead to interesting quirks like being excited when the Impossible Moral Quandary turns up, rather than being torn and distraught, because dealing with Impossible Moral Quandaries is Part Of Being A Paladin.

It would let you play a lot of the cheesy Knight in Shining Armour tropes dead straight - he'd be the unbelievably wholesome saviour archetype, who boldly strides forward to save the day Because It's The Right Thing To Do, and who would have a serious but compassionate talk with the party necromancer about how I'm Very Disappointed In You, Consorting With Those Evil Spirits. No-one is actually that perfect, so normally that archetype is ridiculous - but because you're not playing a Paladin, you're playing a character who's playing at being a Paladin, it could work. It would be amazing.

...the more I think about this, the more I want to play them. They'd call themselves Sir Roderick, despite being female, and speak in an artificially deep voice, because the Knight in Shining Armour is always a man. They'd pretty much have to have a pure white charger, I think, and wield a greatsword. This sounds like a great concept.

"Oh, it's a moral quandary! That's great! Let's see, I think ... yeah. Yeah, that's it! I'm going to fast all night and pray for guidance! Oh, oh, and I can flagellate myself!"

"That is one disturbingly chipper penitent."

[DarkSonic1337]

Also because someone told hm that doing good would make him feel better. When it didn't, well, a lot of plot happened.

So more like Kotimine Kirei from the Fate series then?
http://lparchive.org/Fatestay-night/Update%20352/28-HF14-04-32.jpg

He was the son of a priest and raised as a very religious man. He knows what is right and what is wrong, and he strived to do good and punish evildoers because he was taught to do so. He was told that being good would bring him joy, but he instinctively enjoyed the misery of others (something that caused him much grief because he believed it was sinful). He was eventually convinced to "fall" in order to seek his own happiness.

[Red Fel]

Would they be able to do good things for bad reasons without majorly affecting their alignment?

Say you save a town. Then lead them to revolt against the (presumably neutral) government.

Or say you give save someone from starving in the streets. On the condition they become your slave.

Or showing mercy to an enemy. Because you know allowing them to live will spread the stories of the atrocities you performed on their allies.

Short version? As I've often expressed it, Good is about actions, Evil is about intentions. A Good character cannot perform Evil acts and remain Good, because his actions define him - there are Things One Must Not Do. An Evil character may perform Good acts, however, provided that he can define an Evil motive for his deeds.

For example, take the criminal overlord who creates charitable foundations, contributes to local governments, funds orphanages, and makes public appearances in places hit by natural disasters in order to draw attention to their needs.

The charitable foundations are fronts for his illegal acts. The government contributions are either tax deductions or bribes. The orphanages allow him to screen urchins for desirability in his vast criminal network, and indoctrinate them in the ideals of his particular methodology. The public appearances justify his presence in a particular disaster-struck area, when in fact he's there to capitalize on the misery and suffering of others.

In short: No matter how clean his face, it covers a black heart. He's Evil, and these token Good deeds don't change that - if anything, it makes matters worse, because he is twisting noble acts to serve his wicked goals.

So, yes. It's possible to be bad while doing good. The question, as OldTrees points out, is how your DM handles alignment.

If your DM looks at your conduct and says, "You're doing Good, you've shifted to Neutral," that's that. If he says, "You're doing Good, go kick a puppy or something," that's that. If he says, "You're doing Good, you'd better have a bad excuse," that's that. And if he says nothing, that's that, too. Generally, it behooves you to discuss your concept of Evil with the DM outside of the game, to ensure that you're both on the same page.

[OldTrees1]

Short version? As I've often expressed it, Good is about actions, Evil is about intentions. A Good character cannot perform Evil acts and remain Good, because his actions define him - there are Things One Must Not Do. An Evil character may perform Good acts, however, provided that he can define an Evil motive for his deeds.

This leads to a border case where someone has evil intentions and good actions. Since a Evil character is defined by intentions, their good deeds have no affect. Since a Good character is defined by their actions, do evil intentions have no affect?

Both possible answers have interesting results. One has the "being Good is harder" result and the other has different alignments for different characters that both had evil intentions and good actions.