Can a good-aligned character have revenge as a motive?

[Giegue]

As the title asks. Revenge is fundamentally considered a evil motive by many. However, in some cases, revenge can be justified. Thus I have the following question: could one make a good-aligned character with revenge as their primary motive if their revenge is justified in a big way? I mean, revenge is obviously evil when pushed to extremes, but if a good-aligned avenger showed restraint and didn't hurt innocent people/only target the corrupt in the pursuit of vengeance would they be able to fall under good if they had other good qualities? Could they commit crimes to achieve their ends and be unforgiving to enemies, yet as long as they only target the evil and corrupt, and make an effort to help others who are innocent, could they still be considered good?(Though they'd probably fall under chaotic good, I would assume.)

In shorter terms: Is it possible to make a good-aligned avenger/character who seeks revenge, and if so, how would you do it?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

There are some systems of ethics (and religions, but we can't go into that here) which maintain that because revenge seeks to destroy a life (and generally sustains a hatred towards that life), it still remains an evil act. It's at the very least a very uncharitable act.

I mean, look at it this way. You're describing a character who could very easily be championing justice. There's one key difference, though. If they're doing it for revenge, this means that they're seeking to hurt someone for their own personal satisfaction. They're not doing it because it's the right thing to do, they're doing it because somebody got hurt, and it makes them feel better to hurt the perpetrator in revenge.

There's a line, in fact, where justice crosses over into vengeance, and vice versa, and that can be very interesting to play with. When you're righting wrongs, that's doing justice. When you're hurting wrongdoers because you despise them, that's revenge.

It's actually pretty easy to tell the difference between the two: observe what happens when justice is served (i.e. the perpetrator is caught and sent to prison). Is the character satisfied? If so, then they were truly seeking to right a wrong, and it was probably justice. If not, then what they really wanted to do was achieve emotional satisfaction by punishing the "bad guy" themselves.

In reality, the two are never exclusive. You're always going to have characters who have both as a motivation, just as a character has good and bad reasons for doing anything; what's key is which motivation is the primary, driving one, and which motivation is subordinate to it.

[Blightedmarsh]

Confucius wrote "If you go seeking revenge you must first dig two graves". The Aesop isn't that you have give up on revenge because it will destroy you but that you should commit yourself to the cause of revenge above and beyond your own life. In classical Athens they where laws dictating a succession of who was responsible for exacting revenge and for what.

Different strokes for different folks.

For further information you could try enter the dragon as well as pretty much every action movie made in the eighties.

[Morty]

Good characters aren't saints devoid of personality flaws. So I think you can.

[TheSummoner]

I'll second what Morty said. Revenge in and of itself is not a good thing, but so long as enough of the other things the character does/believes/has as motivation are good, then the character can still be good overall. People aren't driven by a single motivation and while revenge may be a major one for this character, he or she is also driven by other things that aren't as negatice. His or her actions could largely be good and he/she could do enogh good to still be considered a good character despite the motivation of revenge.

[Giegue]

You make good points, though I think the trial scenario is a bad example because that, to me, was always a more lawful then good thing. I mean, what about a chaotic good character who thought that the systems and laws of the land are not an adequate means to deliver justice due to their distrust of governments and the legal system? In that case, the character would not be satisfied with the trial but not because they wished to cause harm to the guilty themselves. Rather, their reason would be that they feel laws and governments are an unfit means for delivering justice and that if justice is to be done the guilty that it should be divorced from any kind of bureaucracy.

Despite this, though, I understand your example. I just wanted to point out that the whole chaotic good alignment messes it up. On that subject, would a chaotic good character killing, or at the least leaving a villain to die because he/she dose not believe that the government/law is an adequate means of justice shift them to chaotic neutral or chaotic evil? Or could they do such a thing and retain their goodness?

EDIT: Triple Ninja'ed.

[Spiryt]

Can't really see revenge as "evil" on it's own - surely can and often will lead to evil deeds.

But if somebody murdered your people/enslaved the young and destroyed the old, and so on - then revenge inflicted on him is in fact good thing on it's own....

[lightningcat]

The all consuming, do anything to destroy your enemy, style revenge? No.

Less extreme versions? Yes.
Luke original reason to go after Darth Vader is revenge based. Heck, Roy's reason for going after Xykon is revenge related as well, although with a generational gap.

[Wyntonian]

Depends.

"He killed my child! I'll show him what that pain is like...before I kill him!" Pretty much evil.

"He killed my child! I'll never let him do that again, even if it means killing him in the process!" A less-than-perfect but still reasonably good. I wouldn't make a PC paladin fall for that.

[Kyuu Himura]

I think I have something interesting to add to this conversation, let me explain... no, there's too much, let me sum up:


Hello. My name is Iñigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Depends.

"He killed my child! I'll show him what that pain is like...before I kill him!" Pretty much evil.

"He killed my child! I'll never let him do that again, even if it means killing him in the process!" A less-than-perfect but still reasonably good. I wouldn't make a PC paladin fall for that.

I would actually consider the latter to be solidly Good.

This also (IMO) is a really good illustration of what I was trying to say about the distinction between revenge (the former example here) and justice (the latter example).

[Kitten Champion]

I bring Hunter x Hunter up a lot, but it's actually pertinent here. Kurapika, one of the main characters of the manga series, is essentially motivated by revenge for his fallen clansman at the hands of bandits. This in itself is morally neutral, it's a reason why he acts just like everyone else has. In spite of revenge becoming his raison d'etre, he maintains being lawful good -- or the closest equivalent in a grey-grey morality setting.

How?

He has sense of responsibility to others, even when struggling against his thirst for vengeance. He maintains his professionalism by living up to his word on the job he's hired to do, even when it bars him from pursuing the bandits. He insists on leaving his companions and any potential bystanders out of the conflict, taking all consequences on himself in every conceivable way. He also operates entirely within both the spirit and letter of the law while doing it, although the law is something of a limited force in this world.

When he first does confront his quarry, in spite of his justified anger, he's still hesitant to kill them. He gives them the opportunity to explain their actions, to express remorse and face justice of sorts. At one point, when be believes they're dead at the hands of another he is extremely disheartened -- but ultimately chooses to embrace another objective which is significant for him -- get what was stolen from his clan back, piece by piece.

His vengeance is, to a degree, hollow -- but the message is more nuanced -- he's noble enough to be aware of the fallacy he's basing his actions on, but he's too inextricably attached to his emotions to simply forgive. All he can do, short of drowning in depression, is perpetrate his vengeance in such as a way that he doesn't destroy what's good in himself in the process.

[AKA_Bait]

I'll second what Morty said. Revenge in and of itself is not a good thing, but so long as enough of the other things the character does/believes/has as motivation are good, then the character can still be good overall. People aren't driven by a single motivation and while revenge may be a major one for this character, he or she is also driven by other things that aren't as negatice. His or her actions could largely be good and he/she could do enogh good to still be considered a good character despite the motivation of revenge.

I'm with Morty and TheSummoner on this one. It's important to remember with alignment discussions that a character's alignment is not a straight-jacket. Good characters can do bad things sometimes or even be movtivated by bad things sometimes, just like generally good people can in real life. It would be really difficult for me to say that a character who otherwise acts in ways that are good would fall outside of that alignment generally because of one area of their motivations. This is particularly because of the vengence/justice dynamic that was discussed a bit above. I'd doubt that many revenge seekers view themselves as acting out of vengence rather than justice, even if they have crossed the line.

I'm trying to think of a good fictional example of this, but not having the easiest of times. Perhaps Sam Vimes from the Discworld series? Sometimes he breaks the rules and does an evil thing to an evil person, either for revenge or what he percieves as justice, but I don't think it would really be arguable that Vimes is good aligned.

[navar100]

Two words - righteous anger.

[Madwand99]

Imagine that you a a very good character, nearly a saint. One day you return from a trip to find your village burned, your family slaughtered. Survivors report that orcs raided the village.

Your heart burns with the desire for revenge. Do you suddenly become evil, or neutral? No. Perhaps you seek out these orcs, track them out to their camp and slay them all. Is there a difference between justice and revenge here? Only in motivation, I would argue. You change alignments through your deeds, not solely your motivations (though if you were truly motivated to perform evil acts, then you would be evil.)

As a good person, you might spare the lives of orcish women and children. You would probably not torture enemies to discover the location of the orcish camp. If you discovered the orcs were dominated by a vampire to perform their evil deeds (and were otherwise peaceful), you would instead seek out the vampire, rather than continuing your quest to slay the orcs. It is these differences that separate good and evil in a D&D world. Revenge is a perilous quest, because it might lead you to stray from the path of good, but it is not necessarily evil of itself.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Of course.

Revenge is a common motivation for a character to take up adventuring. There's absolutely nothing to keep a good character from wanting to right the wrongs done to him. The tricky part is not letting the lust for vengeance consume him and shift his alignment away from good.

Vengeance as a motive = morally neutral
Vengeance as an obsession = evil

[neonchameleon]

Depends on the revenge. There are basically two sorts. "That was bad. I never want it to happen to me again." and "That was bad. I never want it to happen to anyone again." The latter can be good.

[Lord_Gareth]

BoED suggests that vengeance for wrongs is a 'right' all beings have, and that many Good-aligned beings choose to abdicate that right in favor of mercy. Of course, evil actions taken in pursuit of revenge (harming innocents, torture, the like) are probably not okay, but revenge itself isn't necessarily a non-good motive.

Of course, depending on the character revenge can be a very chaotic motive, so do keep that in mind.

[Dr.Epic]

In shorter terms: Is it possible to make a good-aligned avenger/character who seeks revenge, and if so, how would you do it?

No. You can't. You can make a good character that seeks justice, but not vengeance.

[Sutremaine]

Survivors report that orcs raided the village.

Orcs again?

I don't think the desire for revenge is a Good motivation, but it's not enough to change a character's alignment. It's both subjective and abstract, and whatever alignment it might have is overshadowed by how you go about getting your revenge.

[Tengu_temp]

Two words - righteous anger.

Which is often the first step towards becoming a fallen hero. A good character can seek vengeance, but must not be blinded by it.

[Knaight]

No. You can't. You can make a good character that seeks justice, but not vengeance.

The problem here is one where an absolute statement like this contradicts everything else. Say a character is driven by revenge, but they are also a genuinely good person in a huge number of other ways. They do what they can to make things better, they are generally unwilling to cause harm to those other than the very specific person they are getting revenge on. Yet, somehow, revenge nullifies all of this? I don't think so.

[Dr.Epic]

The problem here is one where an absolute statement like this contradicts everything else. Say a character is driven by revenge, but they are also a genuinely good person in a huge number of other ways. They do what they can to make things better, they are generally unwilling to cause harm to those other than the very specific person they are getting revenge on. Yet, somehow, revenge nullifies all of this? I don't think so.

Revenge is specifically about bringing harm to someone that harmed you for the sole purpose that it will make you feel better, not about bringing someone to justice. It doesn't matter that you don't harm anyone else. That just means you have some standards. You can have standards and not be good; they call that lawful neutral or lawful evil. If you're really good, then you would just forget about it. Be the bigger man and realize you hunting this person down will not heal whatever damage they did against you.

[Lord_Gareth]

Revenge is specifically about bringing harm to someone that harmed you for the sole purpose that it will make you feel better, not about bringing someone to justice. It doesn't matter that you don't harm anyone else. That just means you have some standards. You can have standards and not be good; they call that lawful neutral or lawful evil. If you're really good, then you would just forget about it. Be the bigger man and realize you hunting this person down will not heal whatever damage they did against you.

And the suggestion from BoED that vengeance is neutral?

[Grim Portent]

I would say you can make a character with revenge as a motive and yet still have good as an alignment, it depends more on the manner in which the vengeance is sought and the way that you handle events that do not pertain to the revenge.

Stick with noble and morally justifiable actions and you count as good, stray into cruelty and spite too far, or abandon innocents to die in order to pursue the character's revenge and you would become neutral and eventually evil.

[Knaight]

Revenge is specifically about bringing harm to someone that harmed you for the sole purpose that it will make you feel better, not about bringing someone to justice. It doesn't matter that you don't harm anyone else. That just means you have some standards. You can have standards and not be good; they call that lawful neutral or lawful evil. If you're really good, then you would just forget about it. Be the bigger man and realize you hunting this person down will not heal whatever damage they did against you.

I'm not saying just "don't harm anyone else", I'm saying that the revenge shouldn't be enough to counteract being an active force for good in the world. Lets take a concrete example - Say there is a healer who has been wronged somehow, and wants to seek revenge. They set aside a decent chunk of their income to try and bring down the person who wronged them, for a reason of revenge. They also go out of their way to provide for the sick, freely heal those who do not have the means to pay them, and move to protect those with less power in society. Because of them, dozens of people do not starve, hundreds or thousands have not died or do not live in a state of illness, and those with less power in society have a voice. Is this character somehow not good because they set aside some of their income they get from treating the wealthy to bringing down a tyrant, and they do so because of being personally wronged?

Your assertion says no. That seems absurd to me.

[Dr.Epic]

Is this character somehow not good because they set aside some of their income they get from treating the wealthy to bringing down a tyrant

No. They're removing a harmful force in the word that would harm others and bring his foul deeds to justice.

and they do so because of being personally wronged?

Yes. They're being brought joy from bringing suffering to someone else. Does that sound like a good person? Someone who delights in the harm of others? That's all revenge is: you making yourself feel better by harming someone else.

Your assertion says no. That seems absurd to me.

Honestly, your description sounds absurd. No good person is going to go through all that. What kind of good person who selflessly helps others is going to spend so much of their own time and money tracking down and harming someone that harmed them without this being about helping the greater good and is only interested in petty revenge? Sounds like someone who is not mentally well and has a very obsessive personality/mind.

[Slipperychicken]

Yes, Good people can do some Evil acts and still be Good overall. The attitudes which vengeance will likely bring about, however, will begin leading them down the path of darkness. Over time, the characters' moral outlook may eventually shift enough to warrant alignment-change. But it's a very gradual and reversible process.


Remember, we're taking Good here. Not Paladin, nor even [Exalted]. Good alignment a really flexible definition, which can encompass a lot of archetypes, including some who use small Evils (but try to minimize them) for greater Goodness.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

No. You can't. You can make a good character that seeks justice, but not vengeance.

Um...

Spoiler

Show

Pardon signore.

[navar100]

Revenge is specifically about bringing harm to someone that harmed you for the sole purpose that it will make you feel better, not about bringing someone to justice. It doesn't matter that you don't harm anyone else. That just means you have some standards. You can have standards and not be good; they call that lawful neutral or lawful evil. If you're really good, then you would just forget about it. Be the bigger man and realize you hunting this person down will not heal whatever damage they did against you.

A Lawful Good person most likely will go out for Justice, but for the Chaotic Good, vengeance on. Neutral Good depends on the individual. A Lawful Good person going on vengeance would more likely lean on his Lawful side for tit for tat. He'll behave Lawful Neutral which is fine for him.