Good, by any means nessecary? Alignment question.

[SodaDarwin]

As title.
To clarify, a person who is so obsessed with Good that they are willing to force anyone and everything to be Good. By any means necessary. Whether their acts are selfless or selfish, nice or horrifying. What would their actual alignment be? On the one hand, 'Good'... yet, on the other hand, atrocities are just evil...
...so basically an insane Celestial, I guess?

[Sir Toast]

I may not be right but I think that the alignment of a "good" person like you described is considered to be good even if they're not good people.
A good example of this is Miko Miyazaki. She is a lawful "good" paladin but a terrible person..

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0251.gif

And yet she still retains her paladin status (until later when.._

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/JZTDsC3k1aY6tZKHv6O.gif

One could argue both ways but unfortunately in real life people trying to do good as we know might not actually be good people.

[Strigon]

In general, Evil.
As many on this forum have pointed out, your alignment on the Good/Evil axis is less about what your intentions are and more about your willingness to perform Evil acts.
If you're willing to kill innocents, torture, steal, etc. for your cause, then regardless of what your cause is, you're Evil.

I mean, I hate to be the guy to invoke Godwin's Law, but look at Hitler - there's an argument to be made that he had good intentions. Completely insane, skewed and amoral views of "good", but he wanted the world - and especially Germany - to be a better place, with better people. Heck, he was very beneficial to those he considered worthy; he was among the first to institute mandatory paid vacations and overtime for all workers.
Unfortunately he thought the only way to do this was through genocide and slavery, and he still elected to go through with it.

Can you see why any means necessary can be considered Evil? A character like that would start looking an awful lot like Hitler, especially if he thought a certain demographic was holding the world back.

[Kantaki]

@Sir Toast: I'm not sure, while Miko certainly wasn't very nice and certainly not someone you should take as a example how to act as a Good aligned person I think she never commited an outright Evil act until she killed Shojo and even that was more about breaking her oath as a Paladin.

Now Redcloak's backstory might provide a better example of "good" characters using any means necessary, but I don't know enough about that to say how it went for them.

Anyway if the person SodaDarwin is talking about commits to many acts that are usually perceived as evil or at least not good - even if they do so in the name of "Good" it seems doubtful they would remain good aligned.

While executing orc raiders (or halfling/elf/dwarf/human/celestial raiders) to scare off others is one thing trying to accomplish the same by wiping out their Settlements to the last newborn is at least iffy.
The same goes for thing like the use of torture to make the evil overlord's slave soldiers change sides and/or give information.

At least I think that the action counts more than the end goal or the target for that matter. One "iffy" act or three don't make you fall to the dark side, but is you are willing to commit atrocities to reach your Goal you have left the path of Good.

[Strigon]

@Sir Toast: I'm not sure, while Miko certainly wasn't very nice and certainly not someone you should take as a example how to act as a Good aligned person I think she never commited an outright Evil act until she killed Shojo and even that was more about breaking her oath as a Paladin.

Well, a Paladin can't willingly commit an Evil act, or (s)he falls; thus, Miko couldn't have performed an Evil act.
Of course, being Good doesn't mean being Nice.

[Grek]

You can't answer this question without specifying what "bad" acts are being taken in the name of Good.

[goto124]

More important than whether the cosmic forces consider the character to be Good or Evil:

Is that character disruptive to the party?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

...so basically an insane Celestial, I guess?

Fallen angels and other insane celestials are generally evil. A good king is often wise and just, a tyrant who forces his people to live a certain way with (the threat of) violence is generally evil. It's the actions of a character that define it. Evil actions? Evil character. Or neutral at best, under circumstances where they resort to atrocities only when there is absolutely no other way, not just because this way is easier, and do loads of really good stuff on the side.

[Hawkstar]

Freedom is a chaotic concept. Good does not care if people are free or not.


While executing orc raiders (or halfling/elf/dwarf/human/celestial raiders) to scare off others is one thing trying to accomplish the same by wiping out their Settlements to the last newborn is at least iffy.
Nah - all the noncombatants get aggressively reeducated.

[goto124]

Brainwashing someone into having Good beliefs (Helm of Opposite Alignment! Sanctify the Wicked!) is Lawful Good.

We meant capital-G Good, by the way. Cosmic Good. A bit different from the usual meaning of "good".

[LudicSavant]

As title.
To clarify, a person who is so obsessed with Good that they are willing to force anyone and everything to be Good. By any means necessary. Whether their acts are selfless or selfish, nice or horrifying. What would their actual alignment be? On the one hand, 'Good'... yet, on the other hand, atrocities are just evil...
...so basically an insane Celestial, I guess?

If your question is "what Alignment will they be" the answer is "it's totally arbitrary and DM-dependent, because Alignment isn't defined consistently enough for there to actually be a correct answer. You can make the person's alignment be whatever you feel like and nobody could actually correct you."

If your question is what we think about the morality of this character's actions, that's entirely different.

[Mastikator]

Brainwashing someone into having Good beliefs (Helm of Opposite Alignment! Sanctify the Wicked!) is Lawful Good.

We meant capital-G Good, by the way. Cosmic Good. A bit different from the usual meaning of "good".

Wait really? Cuz' there's a line about good that says good people care about the dignity of sentient beings and work to preserve it. Not just their welfare, but dignity. Brainwashing someone would seem to violate that.

[woodlandkammao]

If you make Good a specific set of virtues that must be adhered to by all costs, you have created a Lawful Neutral character with the laws mapping mostly to good. If someone does good things because DEY ARE DA LAAAWWW, instead of because they are the right thing, that's lawful, and your aren't doing it for any Good reason. http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/706/294/296.jpg

[LudicSavant]

Wait really? Cuz' there's a line about good that says good people care about the dignity of sentient beings and work to preserve it. Not just their welfare, but dignity. Brainwashing someone would seem to violate that.

This goes back to what I said in my post. D&D's alignment system is frequently vague and often outright contradictory. There's a reason why alignment threads asking "what alignment s X?" often get several different alignments as responses (sometimes all 9!): it's because each proponent of X being Y alignment can point to somewhere where the rules say that something involved in X qualifies you as Y alignment.

They're not wrong because the line justifying their position isn't in the book. They're wrong because they assume that those lines are consistent across D&D's definition of any given alignment.

In this case, Lawful Good has been defined to allow behavior such as brainwashing people, or even crazy stuff like slaughtering other Lawful Good people if they have ever been of any alignment besides Lawful Good, "so that they can go on to their reward before they can backslide." Or poisoning people as long as you use extra special poisons that cause more pain than regular poisons but only work on Evil people. And there are of course other sections which say that all of those things are definitely not okay if you're Lawful Good.

It's really all over the place. Nobody can be "right" in these sorts of alignment arguments because usually the canon will respond to the same query with "Yes" on one page and "No" on another, which of course violates the Law of Non-Contradiction.

[Hawkstar]

Wait really? Cuz' there's a line about good that says good people care about the dignity of sentient beings and work to preserve it. Not just their welfare, but dignity. Brainwashing someone would seem to violate that.Dignity, not freedom. The Helm of Opposite Alignment is Good. The Beer Helmet of Opposite Alignment is not.

If you make Good a specific set of virtues that must be adhered to by all costs, you have created a Lawful Neutral character with the laws mapping mostly to good. If someone does good things because DEY ARE DA LAAAWWW, instead of because they are the right thing, that's lawful, and your aren't doing it for any Good reason.If the Law is Good, it's Lawful Good, not Lawful Neutral.

[woodlandkammao]

If the Law is Good, it's Lawful Good, not Lawful Neutral.

We usually see Judge Dredd or Batman as the epitomes of LN. And the law they follow is generally considered to be the good guys. If the definition of 'Lawful' is 'Good', then that's kinda missing the point of the alignment system. It's all about WHY they do what they do.

[woodlandkammao]

I've actually had a pretty big discussion about this exact topic. Check it out.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?433932-What-alignment-is-For-the-greater-Good

[Quertus]

Willing to take any action necessary for the greater good? You are The Operative from Serenity. You are Evil. And you should know it.

The Operative: I'm sorry. If your quarry goes to ground, leave no ground to go to. You should have taken my offer. Or did you think none of this was your fault?
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: I don't murder children.
The Operative: I do. If I have to.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Why? Do you even know why they sent you?
The Operative: It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?
The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster.What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.

[Hawkstar]

We usually see Judge Dredd or Batman as the epitomes of LN. And the law they follow is generally considered to be the good guys. If the definition of 'Lawful' is 'Good', then that's kinda missing the point of the alignment system. It's all about WHY they do what they do.

No we don't. Batman defies alignment (as the chart so handily shows), though tends to be an 'edgy' enforcer of only just laws (I don't think I've seen him take down anyone trying to defy a Homeowner's Association), and Judge Dredd enforces unjust law just as impartially as he enforces just law.

Alignment isn't motivation. Alignment is who your cause is literally aligned with.

[Red Fel]

As title.
To clarify, a person who is so obsessed with Good that they are willing to force anyone and everything to be Good. By any means necessary. Whether their acts are selfless or selfish, nice or horrifying. What would their actual alignment be? On the one hand, 'Good'... yet, on the other hand, atrocities are just evil...
...so basically an insane Celestial, I guess?

Disclaimer: This post presumes a D&D-esque alignment grid. That's grid, not spectrum, we don't think in a linear fashion where I come from.

It depends. As others have mentioned, there are effects, such as the Helm of Opposite Alignment and Sanctify the Wicked, which alter your alignment and are not inherently Evil. (In fact, StW is explicitly and extremely Good by definition.) So we know that, in essence, brainwashing is at worst a Neutrally-charged act. Free will is not a Good value, is the point.

The question is the nature of the "atrocities" you mention. Altering someone's brain directly is not Evil. Torturing them, on the other hand, is. Slavery or forced labor is. All sorts of uses of force could be considered Evil.

But here's another wrinkle. A lot of those rules go out the window when dealing with inherently Evil beings, such as Outsiders. Straight-up murder of them, by some sources, is considered a Good act. Having the (Evil) subtype, again according to some sources, grants others carte blanche to do basically whatever the crap they want to you. This seems, and is, somewhat contradictory, in that one would think that it's the actions, and not the targets, that define the alignment result, but that's logic, and this is RAW.

So, long story short? It depends.

[goto124]

there are effects, such as the Helm of Opposite Alignment and Sanctify the Wicked, which alter your alignment and are not inherently Evil. (In fact, StW is explicitly and extremely Good by definition.) So we know that, in essence, brainwashing is at worst a Neutrally-charged act. Free will is not a Good value, is the point.

The question is the nature of the "atrocities" you mention. Altering someone's brain directly is not Evil. Torturing them, on the other hand, is. Slavery or forced labor is. All sorts of uses of force could be considered Evil.

Red Fel!

*cough*

Could I say that Sanctify the Wicked is Lawful Good? Rather extreme on the Lawful side, probably.


A lot of those rules go out the window when dealing with inherently Evil beings, [snip] This seems, and is, somewhat contradictory, in that one would think that it's the actions, and not the targets, that define the alignment result, but that's logic, and this is RAW.

Beings made of literal Evil commit lots of despicable and Evil acts (and probably killed plenty of people), thus they have revoked their right to live. Okay, that may not make much sense either, especially with alignment systems (I really hope this is RAW somewhere, as opposed to being a ruling/houserule that other players use) that say you have to wait for actual evidence that whoever you want to kill actually did something worthy of death (or lose your Good alignment).

What books are we going off, by the way?

[LudicSavant]

But here's another wrinkle. A lot of those rules go out the window when dealing with inherently Evil beings, such as Outsiders. Straight-up murder of them, by some sources, is considered a Good act. Having the (Evil) subtype, again according to some sources, grants others carte blanche to do basically whatever the crap they want to you. This seems, and is, somewhat contradictory, in that one would think that it's the actions, and not the targets, that define the alignment result, but that's logic, and this is RAW.

So, long story short? It depends.

Yeah.

I would say that it's more Red vs Blue than Good vs Evil or Law vs Chaos, but even that is too generous, because I often have no way of actually telling whether someone is on the Blue or Red side by pointing to the canon sources. For example, we're told that Mialee is Chaotic because she's devoted to mastering her art, but that Ember is Lawful because she's devoted to mastering her discipline. Those are the same things, PHB! :smallannoyed:

[Hawkstar]

Beings made of literal Evil commit lots of despicable and Evil acts (and probably killed plenty of people), thus they have revoked their right to live.

Not if they're freshly formed. I think, though, it hits a "These things Must be removed from the world by any means neccessary"

also - Killing is not evil in any statement of RAW (It's explicitly stated to be nonevil multiple times, though it is implied by Evil)

[goto124]

For example, we're told that Mialee is Chaotic because she's devoted to mastering her art, but that Ember is Lawful because she's devoted to mastering her discipline. Those are the same things, PHB! :smallannoyed:

And what do those does that have anything with the Law/Chaos axis?

[LudicSavant]

And what do those does that have anything with the Law/Chaos axis?

Well, it's from the PHB section on defining alignment.


Lawful Neutral, "Judge": Ember, a monk who follows her discipline without being swayed either by the demands of those in need or by the temptations of evil, is lawful neutral.


Neutral, "Undecided": Mialee, a wizard who devotes herself to her art and is bored by the semantics of moral debate, is neutral.

So, both are unswayed by moral debate, so that's the same. And both are devoted to getting better at a skill, so that's the same. So why does this establish why Ember is Lawful and Mialee is Not-Lawful? I have no idea.

That's the tip of the iceberg though. For example, we're given all these adjectives which supposedly describe Law and Chaos, and few of them actually contradict each other. You can be honorable and love freedom. You can be adaptable and trustworthy. You can be closed-minded and reckless. You can resent authority and be obedient to authority. These things are neither opposed nor even usually found in different people. Closed-mindedness tends to beget recklessness. Obedience often breeds resentment. Respecting freedom is honorable. Being adaptable makes you more worthy of trust.

And then there's stuff like Good and Evil. A Lawful Good character is described as acting as a person is expected or required to act, but fighting their enemies without mercy. A Lawful Evil person is described as playing by the rules, but without mercy.

And then we get things like the Book of Exalted Deeds, or quotes from Gygax himself about how Lawful Good people should slaughter women and children of the losing side because they might grow up to be Evil, and execute prisoners who convert to Lawful Good so that they can go onto their reward before they backslide.

[goto124]

Well, it's from the PHB section on defining alignment.

Of which edition of DnD?

[LudicSavant]

Of which edition of DnD?

3.5e for the Mialee/Ember thing.

I can address 5e's as well (though for 5e I only have one book: The PHB). 5e's descriptions are short and vague (the whole thing is about half a page, maybe there's more in other sources besides the PHB?), encouraging players to fill in the blanks themselves.

"Lawful Good creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society." That's the entirety of the description we get in the alignment section.

Maybe "society" expects that brainwashing is the wrong thing. Maybe it expects it's the right thing (brainwashing the Geth was Paragon in Mass Effect 2!). More realistically, parts of society will think it's the right thing and other parts will think it's the wrong thing. And different societies will have wildly different values, which raises the question of how the heck you can have a single cosmic alignment dedicated to conforming to societal expectations in the first place. I can't wander from medieval Italy to the Trobriand Islands and have the same attitudes about relationships or eating habits and be considered a decent person by both societies.

There's an argument to be had on "is this person doing the right thing." There isn't really an argument to be had on "is this person X alignment" because everyone has to interpret the alignment system and fill in the blanks (or, as the case may be, selectively filter out the contradictory bits), and how those blanks are filled in is relevant to the answer.

[snacksmoto]

As title.
To clarify, a person who is so obsessed with Good that they are willing to force anyone and everything to be Good. By any means necessary. Whether their acts are selfless or selfish, nice or horrifying. What would their actual alignment be? On the one hand, 'Good'... yet, on the other hand, atrocities are just evil...
...so basically an insane Celestial, I guess?

As has already been demonstrated in the thread and throughout history, "good" is a nuanced, contentious issue and open to myriad interpretations.

Personally, the person would be classified as Evil working for Good. That person is not moral if they commit Evil, especially at the cost of others, even for the sake of Good. How Evil would depend on the extremes of the atrocities that person is willing to commit. Being "Good" isn't simply about who you align to, but the conduct and adherence to the morals of the society the person aligns with. Bringing in societies with conflicting morals vastly complicates the matter. Most RPGs assume one predominant society's morals as the baseline to which all other societies in that game are compared to.

Therefore, instead of opening the question to modern world morals and what would invariably end up being unresolved, I would have to ask: Does your game's predominant society view that person's actions as morally acceptable or deviant?
Bringing in the moral compass of anyone else, including your own, complicates the decision. Heck, even if you take your own real life society's moral compass and compare it to your society's moral compass from one or two hundred years ago you'll find discrepancies. Perhaps they won't be extreme discrepancies but they will be there.

[Chijinda]

Oddly enough the Star Wars EU has a pretty good quote for this sort of thing:

"There are times when the end justifies the means. But when you build an argument based on a whole series of such times, you may find that you've constructed an entire philosophy of evil."

[KillianHawkeye]

Oddly enough the Star Wars EU has a pretty good quote for this sort of thing:

"There are times when the end justifies the means. But when you build an argument based on a whole series of such times, you may find that you've constructed an entire philosophy of evil."

Nice.

Yeah, my view (and I stress this because people have differing views of alignment) is that "by any means necessary" cannot be a Good philosophy in D&D for the simple fact that including Evil means will eventually and inevitably corrupt the doer.

I'm not saying that an Evil act can never be done for Good, but almost anyone who lives their life that way will gradually lose sight of the truth of their actions, the justifications giving way over time to delusions.

Just look at fictional characters in the media. There are many, many examples of villains with good intentions; what makes them villains are the things they do to reach their vaunted goals.

[LudicSavant]

Just look at fictional characters in the media. There are many, many examples of villains with good intentions; what makes them villains are the things they do to reach their vaunted goals.

This is more an issue with the superhero genre, I feel. Stereotypically, the villain is the one who is trying to change things, and the hero is the one who is stopping things from changing.

If we only looked at stereotypical fictional superheroes whose acts of heroism are generally limited to stopping things (even if they do tend to be bad things) and restoring the status quo, we'd have to exclude a great deal of the people who made real positive change in real life.

For example: http://video.pbs.org/video/2365323283/

[Hawkstar]

Nice.

Yeah, my view (and I stress this because people have differing views of alignment) is that "by any means necessary" cannot be a Good philosophy in D&D for the simple fact that including Evil means will eventually and inevitably corrupt the doer.

I'm not saying that an Evil act can never be done for Good, but almost anyone who lives their life that way will gradually lose sight of the truth of their actions, the justifications giving way over time to delusions.

Just look at fictional characters in the media. There are many, many examples of villains with good intentions; what makes them villains are the things they do to reach their vaunted goals.

... is Commander Shepard a villain?

[hamishspence]

Depends what choices the player playing him makes.

[Red Fel]

Depends what choices the player playing him makes.

http://s2.n4g.com/news/972431_1.png

Renegade for life.

[Kantaki]

I can address 5e's as well (though for 5e I only have one book: The PHB). 5e's descriptions are short and vague (the whole thing is about half a page, maybe there's more in other sources besides the PHB?), encouraging players to fill in the blanks themselves.

"Lawful Good creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society." That's the entirety of the description we get in the alignment section.

:smallconfused:Wait, following that logic a backstabbing Drow-priestess that sacrifies Innocents to Loth, murders half her family in their sleep and does what ever else Drow arer expected to do... would be Lawful Good?:smallconfused:
I think those descriptions can should be disregarded for alignment discussions. They only make things worse.

[wumpus]

Shouldn't this be almost entirely defined with the setting?

Any "gbamn" NPC would be a villain in high fantasy (the "big bad" is preferably "evil by any means available"). On the other hand, gritty realism is no place for a RAW paladin. Rich has repeatedly pointed out (I think most specifically in commentary on his Gygax memorial comic) that the stickverse has objective morality and thus "good by evil means" is considered evil. This even tripped up the gods themselves in creating greenskins as "little bags of xp". Quite evil, even if it was to create good heroes.

[wumpus]

Dirty DM tricks #47: That recruiter for the secret "gray guard" is actually a succubus. You didn't actually think that you could get away with "gray guard" actions and remain a paladin, did you? There's never been LG sanctioned "gray guard". Enjoy being a fighter without feats.

[LudicSavant]

:smallconfused:Wait, following that logic a backstabbing Drow-priestess that sacrifies Innocents to Loth, murders half her family in their sleep and does what ever else Drow arer expected to do... would be Lawful Good?:smallconfused:

I think those descriptions can should be disregarded for alignment discussions. They only make things worse.

Correct. Which in turn raises the question, what is regarded in alignment discussions?

This is exactly my point. Alignment arguments have the bad reputation they do because they tend to be based on the assumption that the terms are defined in the rules, objectively, even though they're actually not. The alignment system is consistently poorly defined, and occasionally contradictory.

A rule that violates the law of non-contradiction isn't a rule at all, because it's impossible for a contradiction to exist in practice. The frequent result is that people are just using their own personal interpretation (often mutually exclusive with other people's personal interpretations), and pretending that it is something objectively defined by the rules instead of just being their own house rules. Which is why we get alignment threads where people respond to queries like "what alignment is X?" with basically every alignment, and all of the sides are able to reference a source in the books saying that X is an example of that alignment.


Depends what choices the player playing him makes.

Even the most Paragon Commander Shepard blows up that Mass Relay and kills all the innocent Batarians.

[Kantaki]

Then the question is, what is regarded in alignment discussions?

A mix of common sense* and sources on alignment that don't allow you to argue that sacrifying people is Lawful Good of course.
I'm not saying that other alignment descriptions make much more sense, but if "Drow that act like Drow (read evil) are Lawful Good is a viable Interpretation you might want to rethink your description.:smallamused:

*Aunt Edith says: As far as it is possible in a internet roleplaying forum.:smalltongue:

[LudicSavant]

A mix of common sense and sources on alignment that don't allow you to argue that sacrifying people is Lawful Good of course. What sources are those, in 5e?

As for "common sense," common sense about what? If alignments are not directly associated with morality (e.g. Good != actual moral rightness) then there's nothing to reason about outside of the definitions given. Either we're talking about real world morality, or we're talking about some different thing that is defined in-world.

People need to define what they're actually discussing for a discussion to have any chance of being coherent.

[Lord Torath]

Beings made of literal Evil commit lots of despicable and Evil acts (and probably killed plenty of people), thus they have revoked their right to live. Okay, that may not make much sense either, especially with alignment systems (I really hope this is RAW somewhere, as opposed to being a ruling/houserule that other players use) that say you have to wait for actual evidence that whoever you want to kill actually did something worthy of death (or lose your Good alignment).
Not if they're freshly formed. I think, though, it hits a "These things Must be removed from the world by any means neccessary"Freshly formed from what? As I understand it, demons, devils, daemons, and other fiends all started as lesser versions of themselves (Balors started out as Dretches, Pit Fiends began as Lemures, and Nycadaemons used to be Mezzodaemons). All of them used to be Larva. And larva are formed from the souls of evil mortals when they die.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Freshly formed from what? As I understand it, demons, devils, daemons, and other fiends all started as lesser versions of themselves (Balors started out as Dretches, Pit Fiends began as Lemures, and Nycadaemons used to be Mezzodaemons). All of them used to be Larva. And larva are formed from the souls of evil mortals when they die.

Demons are born directly from the Abyss, no promotions necessary. Devil are promoted, but are heavily processed before becoming lemures. I have no clue on yugoloths; I would need to check with Afroakuma.

[Lord Torath]

Cosmologies have changed, apparently. Back in AD&D days, the stuff I wrote was true. Sounds like it's time for me to get a cane and start yelling, "Get off my lawn, ya dang kids!"

[Florian]

Well, today is a regional holyday based on a religion I'm not part of, so it's a lazy day and I have time for following up on some idle thoughts.

Basics:
I do think that most people get confused by the difference between "good" and "Good". The former is a shorthand for "This is beneficial to" while the later is based on a fixed cosmic principal. These are not the same thing.
Further, I do think that the designers (Especially 3E/3,5E) screwed up royally in the execution of the alignment system. If I would venture a guess, that's because they didn't comprehend it themselves and/or couldn't jump their own shadow in regard to their own religious sensibilities.

Let me explain this, as it gets important later on. The basic concepts here may not sit well with deeply religious types, so be advised: Every alignment should reward its followers as they did "good" in life. Punishment being meted out based on alignment is a POV-thingie that has nothing to do with how cosmic principles work.
Need details to clarify that? You were LG, you are reborn as an angel. You were CE, you are reborn as an demon. That is rewarding a "good" life an that is how it should be done. LE types thrown in Hell for an eternity of torture? NE types hunted down and forced to endure oblivion? I hope that at this point it should be clear that something is wrong here, as this is not rewarding a "good" life, instead acting on punishment based on a "Good" life.

Using an outside POV, all alignments are basically equal and they even have some basic principles in common: It is considered to be "good" to convert more people to follow that alignment and it is considered to be "good" to erradicate the antithesis of said alignment, abhorring the use of the tools of the antithesis as much as the antithesis itself.

Still taking the outside POV, all single or composite alignments are based on some principal and auxiliary values that define them. Note that these are values, not laws, regulations or comandments and that they are opposed by the values associated with the antithesis. What they do concern is the intention behind an action, not the action itself.

At this point, please note that quite a lot of things that we think of as "good" are not really part of what is "Good", an error that is based on how our language works and how we use to simplify some complex issues. (Hint: Democracy)

These distinctions are important as they fit pretty well with how alignment-based stuff works and what descriptors actually mean.

So, trying to close the loop and answer to the OP: As alignments represent cosmic principles and there are actuall options to comunicate with them, trying to do "good for Good" is possible, the "any means" part of it is not and it would border on either being fanaticism or delusion to still follow through with it, as it is always possible to check where you stand in regards to an alignment and thereby know the objective truth.
With that said, still talking about "Good", you still do "good" when killing or converting [Evil] as long as you do not use [Evil] methods while you're at it.

Addendum: Reread some Alan Morre and Neil Gaiman stuff. The Comedian and War are two prime examples for characters who understood and internalized these distinctions.

[goto124]

By the way, how do we differentiate between Law and Good (not good)?

[Florian]

By the way, how do we differentiate between Law and Good (not good)?

Sorry, I'm not too confident that my english is up to it.

First, please consider that we have some entanglement of the principles, as we, as being used to living in first world countries, tend to believe that following one principle leads to following the other principle and vice versa. For us, it is natural that the things we value should be protected and promoted by laws and the things that threaten what we value should be outlawed and punished using the same laws.

That has nothing to do with "Law" at all and doesn't even touch on that cosmic principle. Instead, that are only protection mechanics in place that we call "laws".

To get a grip an "Law", it is necessary to get a grip on "Chaos" and thereby find out why both have inehrently nothing to do with "Good" and "Evil" and why our perception of it is solely based on where we live and what we know, therefore pretty screwed up.

In essence, "Law" puts the needs of society as a whole before the needs of individual parts of society, whereas "Chaos" promotes the individual over society as it is.

The common missconception here is that this alignment axis is about upholding or breaking "laws", but frankly, those are too small and irrelevant to matter to cosmic princibles. It's all about what has the higher value, the individual or society as a whole.

Some years back, I read a very good article about the difference of eastern and western heroes in classic literature that I found to be very though provoking.

The eastern hero sees a threat to society and steps in to stop it, even if he can relate to it on a personal level and it pains him.

The western hero is disconected from society and only reacts to a threat to himself, stopping that at any cost necessary.

[KillianHawkeye]

... is Commander Shepard a villain?

There was a distinct reason that the morality system of Mass Effect was labeled "Paragon" and "Renegade" rather than Good and Evil. It was to give players the choice to act nice or mean without ever doubting their role as the hero.

Commander Shepard was the hero of the story because no matter how much freedom they give you to affect things, that was always the story Mass Effect was going to be. The difference between Mass Effect and D&D is that morality isn't objectively absolute in Mass Effect; there is much more nuance and shades of gray than the simplistic trinary Good/Evil/Neither that D&D operates on. It's more like real life, where you're given tough choices with consequences and you do the best you can.

So.... yes, a Renegade Shepard who kills whoever gets in her way and dooms entire alien races to keep the galaxy safe for humanity WOULD be a villain, or at least on her way to becoming one, in D&D. Measured by the classic nine alignments, she'd fall somewhere on the Evil side (or, at best, a very dirty Neutral).

[Voxx]

Personally I would think a good by any means necessary character is probably lawful evil. They would commit atrocities to make the world line up with their version of what is good.

[Milo v3]

"Good by any means" would likely be evil. But, you can commit evil for good, you just have to make sure the end AND the means, justifies the means.

[Florian]

Actually, did anyone here read the Nochnoi Dozor (Night Watch) series of novels? Mind you, not the movies, the actual novels as the movies cut everything that is important in this context.
Those should be mandatory reading and in every Apendix N, as it really goes deep into the whole alignment issue thing as well as the outer planes.

Basic Setup: Objective Alignments exist and they are connected to the outer planes as usual.

Extended Setup: If you want to have power, pick a class and chose to promote an alignment. The more extreme your alignment, the higher your level cap will get (LG being more extreme than LN or NG).
Ones of the amusing missconceptions at this point is, that at the start of the story, LG and CE are seen as the only capstone alignments around and Neutral, especially true neutral, is seen as a powerless non-alignment. This missconception is explored later on in greater detail, showing that's based our natural (and flawed) thinking that an alignment axis works along the lines of best - better - good - worse - worst (Tangent to Paragon/Renegade), which is the basis of subjective alignments.

So, in a sense, think of all characters in the novels as being divine casters with the added option to pick up one or two additional alignment-based domain fitting to their alignment with the usual D&D flaw of there not being a N-based domain around.

Amusingly, most D&D concepts are also around. You pick a class, there're spell lists and spell levels and you actually need to level up to open up more and higher spell slots. Depending on your class, you then have access to better spells or need to crunch some theorie to learn more. Sounds familiar?

Now, this being based on the real world and people being curious as well as insecure, some noteworthy things happen, the results and rammification being either diskussed between the characters or being mused on by the protagonist.
A constant and very important theme is, that it is clear that younger and inexperienced characters neither can't nor want to understand and accept what the higher level characters see as their goals, as they either haven't made the transition from subjective morality to obejctive morality at all or are still stuck along the way.
It is quite common that the younger characters phrase complaints like "but this is evil!", "are we not expected to do something?" or "how can our side let that happen?". Keep in mind that this series is not written with "western sensibilities" in mind - people who act on this notion are not the glorious hero, showing the boss how it really should be done, but plain stupid and keep making the situation worse, as they lack both, wisdom and comprehension to act from an exalted position of knowledge. And that is how it should be.

There are some things that are mused or experimented based off of this and they are noteworthy:
- People do want to know. They test things and try to implement a scientific procedure. At one point, it is mentioned that they had someone stand by, concentration on a detect kind of spell, when they wanted to know if fireballing things is somehow affected by alignment, if mind control/dominate style spells do have anything to do with it, this kind of stuff.
- Another amusing thing is, that people react to a crisis of conscience by asking others to cast detect/commune/true sight kind of spells on their behalf on them, so they can get a reaffirmation that they're still part of the alignment camp.

I mentioned the outer planes earlier. The more all of the concepts get explored during the stories, the more it'll become clear that no normal human being can life there. We can't handle the absolutes of objective alignment and we would have to die or significantly change, stopping being human at all, to make this work.
In addition, I'll become abundantly clear that they are all based on opposition and conflict, becoming meaningless when that conflict will ever come to a resolution.

Some of the termonology used will but a bit confusing, as there's a bit of overlap in concepts and classes use to have two or three names which are based on the alignment the character has. As an example, what we call "Druid" would be "Shapechanger" for the G crowd and "Werewolf" for the E guys.

Now, the main narrative is based on a LG wizard, but it is surprisingly enjoyable when the POV changes to an CE witch or TN inquisitor.

Be advised: None of that happens in the movies. Do yourself the favour, broaden your horizon and read the novels.

The conclusion to all of this may sound strange to most people, as it goes well against our common cultural upbringing and rankles our sensibilities, but: "Alignment" by anything possible, any means necessary is the only way there is.
Remember the single line alignment axis I mentioned earlier? If you go and eliminate one end of it, there'll still be a new end thas has got to be eliminated, up until the point when only one is left and dominant. Pray tell me, why should "Good" spare "Neutral"?