Good and Evil, and the stupid versions thereof

[Inevitability]

I've seen people here state multiple times that people do not do evil for the sake of doing evil. If you are doing evil for evil's sake, you're stupid evil and unrealistic. I agree with these people.

However, how does this apply to good? Many D&D characters do good for the sake of doing good. In which way is this not unrealistic?

[PersonMan]

Well, in some cases both exist.

But 'I do it because it's the right thing' [and I would feel guilty if I didn't due to my upbringing and/or beliefs] is something that happens. On the other hand, 'I do it because it's the wrong thing' isn't really seen in reality, apart from some situations where one is rebelling against a social order or similar - and in these cases, one generally doesn't turn to killing/destroying to do so, but tends to stick to more harmless things.

[jedipotter]

Well ''realistic''.....

There is Stupid Good like:

1.Telling the truth An even happens that is very evil, wrong and illegal, but where no one good is directly hurt. And you and some others greatly benefit from this event. Yet, the Stupid Good person will still come forward and ''tell the truth'' and ruin everyone's lives forever.

2.Not Letting Go Someone, in the course of good, does something a bit on the gray side. They let their superior know and end up doing good and saving that day. But then the Stupid Good superior still has them arrested and charged.

3.Blindness The bad guys put a bomb in a town to go off at midnight, and the good guys stay there looking for the bomb until it explodes and kills them.

[Gnoman]

All three of those are simply "Good", not "Stupid Good". To elaborate:

1. Profiting from Evil is also Evil, particularly when you add the qualifier "nobody good was directly harmed." I can think of a thousand morally reprehensible things that fit your description, but not a single Neutral or even Good one.

2. If you do wrong, you have to pay the cost, even if things work out for the better in the end. Your intentions may be grounds for clemency or mitigation of the penalty, but you still did wrong.

3. Taking bombs for civilians is what we have heroes for. You could argue that remaining to try to find and defuse a bomb in an evacuated town isn't worth it, but making the decision to stay and try to save their property (the loss of which could easily destroy their lives) is merely an evaluation that the possible loss of one's own life outweighs the potential for Good.

Stupid Good is things like charging the warlord's army alone instead of waiting for reinforcements, honoring a deal you made after you learn that the artifact you retrieved is really the power source of a doomsday weapon instead of the harmless table lamp you thought you were retrieving because "I promised to get it for him, even though I didn't know what it was", or agreeing to serve an evil computer that will use your null-magic powers to take over the world because your father promised that when he was still evil.

[Fiery Diamond]

All three of those are simply "Good", not "Stupid Good". To elaborate:

1. Profiting from Evil is also Evil, particularly when you add the qualifier "nobody good was directly harmed." I can think of a thousand morally reprehensible things that fit your description, but not a single Neutral or even Good one.

2. If you do wrong, you have to pay the cost, even if things work out for the better in the end. Your intentions may be grounds for clemency or mitigation of the penalty, but you still did wrong.

3. Taking bombs for civilians is what we have heroes for. You could argue that remaining to try to find and defuse a bomb in an evacuated town isn't worth it, but making the decision to stay and try to save their property (the loss of which could easily destroy their lives) is merely an evaluation that the possible loss of one's own life outweighs the potential for Good.

Stupid Good is things like charging the warlord's army alone instead of waiting for reinforcements, honoring a deal you made after you learn that the artifact you retrieved is really the power source of a doomsday weapon instead of the harmless table lamp you thought you were retrieving because "I promised to get it for him, even though I didn't know what it was", or agreeing to serve an evil computer that will use your null-magic powers to take over the world because your father promised that when he was still evil.

What story does that last one come from?

[Yora]

Good and Evil are artificial constructions that basically mean what whatever the person who uses them considers to be "right" or "wrong". You can't just mirror them, as one is at least in theory always "correct" and the other always "incorrect".

If we say someone does something evil, we don't say that it doesn't work, but simply that it works in a way we don't agree with.

Characters can mean well and act dumb, but good for the sake of good is not the same as evil for the sake of evil.

[Seto]

All three of those are simply "Good", not "Stupid Good". To elaborate:

1. Profiting from Evil is also Evil, particularly when you add the qualifier "nobody good was directly harmed." I can think of a thousand morally reprehensible things that fit your description, but not a single Neutral or even Good one.

2. If you do wrong, you have to pay the cost, even if things work out for the better in the end. Your intentions may be grounds for clemency or mitigation of the penalty, but you still did wrong.

3. Taking bombs for civilians is what we have heroes for. You could argue that remaining to try to find and defuse a bomb in an evacuated town isn't worth it, but making the decision to stay and try to save their property (the loss of which could easily destroy their lives) is merely an evaluation that the possible loss of one's own life outweighs the potential for Good.

Stupid Good is things like charging the warlord's army alone instead of waiting for reinforcements, honoring a deal you made after you learn that the artifact you retrieved is really the power source of a doomsday weapon instead of the harmless table lamp you thought you were retrieving because "I promised to get it for him, even though I didn't know what it was", or agreeing to serve an evil computer that will use your null-magic powers to take over the world because your father promised that when he was still evil.

Well, I completely agree with you on the fact that jedipotter's examples were Good and in no way Stupid Good. However, ironically enough, all three of your examples scream of Lawful Stupid to me.

Stupid Good is : - being blind to the fact that Evil exists (that's where Elan started). Refusing to kill a rampaging Demon because "killing is wrong and the poor thing can be redeemed thanks to the power of love", etc. Note that I'm not discarding redemption, that's one of the most Good things to do. But there are cases where it's stupid to try it.
- Self-sacrifice when there's absolutely no point. Jedipotter's bomb example was out of line because there were no other solutions (that the characters know of) that would help them save the villagers, and deciding to save their own skins is Neutral. If however, you're a Fighter who insists on taking the bomb with you and jump with it to another dimension, when your Wizard buddy could defuse it without a risk, you're being Stupid Good.

[Lanaya]

There's also the Miko version of Stupid Good where you kill people for littering because that is a selfish and evil act and it is the duty of all good-aligned individuals to purge evil wherever they see it.

[SiuiS]

I've seen people here state multiple times that people do not do evil for the sake of doing evil. If you are doing evil for evil's sake, you're stupid evil and unrealistic. I agree with these people.

However, how does this apply to good? Many D&D characters do good for the sake of doing good. In which way is this not unrealistic?

Yora wins this one.

Well ''realistic''.....

There is Stupid Good like:

1.Telling the truth An even happens that is very evil, wrong and illegal, but where no one good is directly hurt. And you and some others greatly benefit from this event. Yet, the Stupid Good person will still come forward and ''tell the truth'' and ruin everyone's lives forever.

I do this. Complacency and tacit approval motivate people to do more bad things.

2.Not Letting Go Someone, in the course of good, does something a bit on the gray side. They let their superior know and end up doing good and saving that day. But then the Stupid Good superior still has them arrested and charged.

This isn't good. This is lawful.

3.Blindness The bad guys put a bomb in a town to go off at midnight, and the good guys stay there looking for the bomb until it explodes and kills them.

This isn't good. This is entirely unrelated to alignment in any way.

Good and Evil are artificial constructions that basically mean what whatever the person who uses them considers to be "right" or "wrong". You can't just mirror them, as one is at least in theory always "correct" and the other always "incorrect".

If we say someone does something evil, we don't say that it doesn't work, but simply that it works in a way we don't agree with.

Characters can mean well and act dumb, but good for the sake of good is not the same as evil for the sake of evil.

Well spoke.

[Seto]

There's also the Miko version of Stupid Good where you kill people for littering because that is a selfish and evil act and it is the duty of all good-aligned individuals to purge evil wherever they see it.

Once again, Lawful Stupid. Key-word here ? "Duty". Trying to create unified and coherent behavior in society, according to one's own values, is Lawful.

[Gnoman]

What story does that last one come from?

Man From Mundania, book 12 in Piers Anthony's Xanth Trilogy. To elaborate:

Spoiler

Show

Evil Magician Murphy, a former King of the magical land of Xanth and his future wife (an evil sorceress) were released from magical imprisonment during a brief time when the magic of the land of Xanth went away. During his escape, he made the acquaintance of the evil Com-Pewter, who attempted to imprison them, but Murphy's magical talent of making things go wrong foiled the machine. They made a bargain to transport the outlaws to the magicless land of Mundania (otherwise known as Earth) in exchange for their firstborn son (which seemed rather unlikely, as they hated each other at the time), who will be as Good as they are Evil becoming a servant of Com-Pewter in the event he enters Xanth. They stuck together because they were the only ones from Xanth in the entire world, learned to speak Mundane (English), and eventually married and had a kid. Although by this point they had become nonevil, they never spoke of the bargain (or Xanth, or magic in general) because little Grey had virtually no chance of ever entering Xanth. Naturally, as an adult he met up with a Princess of Xanth who took him home with her, where he learned first of his incredibly powerful magic talent for getting rid of magic and then of the bargain, which he felt honor-bound to honor. Until by accident he entered into the service of the Magician of Information and learned that service to that wizard took precedence over any agreement, contract, or service with any other entity.

[Broken Twin]

I dunno, the vast majority of my Good characters didn't do good for the sake of Good, they did it because they wanted to help people. You don't do things for Good or for Evil, you do things either for yourself or for others. Whether or not your actions are moral or not depends on the situation.

[McBars]

If I wanted reality I wouldn't play D&D. Besides, stupid can be a lot of fun sometimes.

[veti]

There is Stupid Good like:

1.Telling the truth An even happens that is very evil, wrong and illegal, but where no one good is directly hurt. And you and some others greatly benefit from this event. Yet, the Stupid Good person will still come forward and ''tell the truth'' and ruin everyone's lives forever.

2.Not Letting Go Someone, in the course of good, does something a bit on the gray side. They let their superior know and end up doing good and saving that day. But then the Stupid Good superior still has them arrested and charged.

3.Blindness The bad guys put a bomb in a town to go off at midnight, and the good guys stay there looking for the bomb until it explodes and kills them.

(1): Obsession with "truth" is more Lawful than Good. (Witness Tarquin vs Haley.) And it's not necessarily "stupid" to tell the truth in that scenario, even though quite a few (basically, chaotic) people might describe it as such. Because if you're willing to lie in that situation, what else are you willing to lie about? More importantly, others who saw you do it may start thinking you'll lie about certain other things, and before you know it, your credibility is shot every which way. Particularly if you personally gained from this crime.
(2): It may (or may not) be the superior's job to ensure that "grey" acts don't go unchallenged. If the superior "just lets it go" in that case, then she's doing something worse than the original "grey" act - she's covering up. If she's, say, a police commissioner - then a cover-up will corrode the community's faith in the police. Do that just a few times, and before you know it your cops are no longer strolling about cheerfully greeting neighbours, they're cowering in cars and behind riot shields.
(3): If the town has been evacuated, then "continuing to hunt for the bomb until 11:59" is not Good at all, just Stupid. If for some reason it can't be evacuated, then quitting the hunt before then means abandoning innocents to their fate.

I would pin "stupid good" as:
(a) Doesn't save a persecuted slave, but instead persists in trying to free all the slaves in one go, thereby triggering a general revolt that gets most of them killed.
(b) Refuses to do a deal with a mildly evil party, even on advantageous terms, to suppress a much more evil party.
(c) Criticises Measure X as worthless because it only fixes part of a problem. For instance, "there's no point in trying to evacuate, we'd never get everyone out in time".

Examples of "stupid evil" would be:
(x) Killing the rich merchant, instead of just moderately taxing her so that she can come back with more money later.
(y) Kicking the little old lady just because she's nobody special, without considering that others who are someone special can see you doing it.
(z) Refusing point-blank when your superior tries to send you on a dangerous mission. The smart choice is, obviously, to play along until you get the chance to skip out or shirk without losing credit. (Read the Flashman Papers for lessons, if you need them.)

[Sartharina]

Evil for the sake of Evil is only "stupid" in a world without a patron of Evil. But in fantasy worlds that patron usually exists, and is totally awesome and lucrative as well.

Megalomania is also fun. And if you have power... why not use it?

[Tengu_temp]

I see a lot of examples of the "too strict and inflexible" variant of Stupid Good here, but not the "too wide-eyed and trusting" type. The most typical behaviour of such characters is taking mercy and redemption too far and simply letting go captured bad guys, even violent murderers and evil cultists, without even making sure they won't repeat their evil deeds.

[jedipotter]

All three of those are simply "Good", not "Stupid Good". To elaborate:

1. Profiting from Evil is also Evil, particularly when you add the qualifier "nobody good was directly harmed." I can think of a thousand morally reprehensible things that fit your description, but not a single Neutral or even Good one.

Star Trek gives a great example: Evil Cardassian does horrible evil experiments in life forms and builds up a huge library of knowledge. A bit later an alien attaches itself to a human. A quick search shows that only the Cardassian's knowledge can help save the life of the human. So what do you do? Ignore the knowledge gain using utter evil? Just ''hope and pray'' that you can find another way? Or is it ok to say ''we can use the knowledge for good'' and just not worry where it came from?

How about the classic Demon Kickstart. At one time Slog was a nobody, but then he sold his soul to a deman and the demon jump started his carrier. So, now, after Slog has spent 20 years ''doing good all on his own'' is it ok to ruin his life by digging up the dirt that he got help from a demon 20 years ago?

Or the Robin Hood twist: A person Robs the Mob, and then take that money to pay off the debt of a church, day care center or foodbank. Does that place refuse the ''blood money'' and close down?

2. If you do wrong, you have to pay the cost, even if things work out for the better in the end. Your intentions may be grounds for clemency or mitigation of the penalty, but you still did wrong.

Yea, this is like if someone is badly hurt you rush them to the nearest hospital...and ignore things like stop signs and red lights. You can make it to the hospital and save the persons life, but idiot Robocop will still give you 15 tickets for all the traffic laws you broke.

3. Taking bombs for civilians is what we have heroes for. You could argue that remaining to try to find and defuse a bomb in an evacuated town isn't worth it, but making the decision to stay and try to save their property (the loss of which could easily destroy their lives) is merely an evaluation that the possible loss of one's own life outweighs the potential for Good.

It's only hero good if it's direct.

Stupid Good is : - being blind to the fact that Evil exists (that's where Elan started). Refusing to kill a rampaging Demon because "killing is wrong and the poor thing can be redeemed thanks to the power of love", etc. Note that I'm not discarding redemption, that's one of the most Good things to do. But there are cases where it's stupid to try it.

Yea, stupid good is so the ''we only use violence as a last resort and we never get to the last resort''. They are the fools that even when people are dying around them, they are still trying to talk peace.

The Doctor is a great example here. The Master has killed tons of people and done all sorts of evil. The only way to stop him is to kill him. But the Doctor wimps out time after time and lets the Master go. And the Doctor often gets tons of people killed too. After the first 15 minutes when the Doctor ''thinks he is on to something'', he just lets the other humans blunder around an be killed by the monster of the week.

Any good person who says the Stupid ''if we do anything we will stood to their level'' is showing themselves to be Stupid Good.

You see Stupid Good with things like ''if we just give everyone free money the world will be a perfect place'' or ''We accept everyone'' or ''everyone has good in them''.

[Lanaya]

Once again, Lawful Stupid. Key-word here ? "Duty".

No it isn't, that was a random word I happened to shove in there because it seemed to fit. "I kill evil stuff because killing evil stuff is a Good act" is not Lawful Stupid, it is by definition Stupid Good.

[Sartharina]

No it isn't, that was a random word I happened to shove in there because it seemed to fit. "I kill evil stuff because killing evil stuff is a Good act" is not Lawful Stupid, it is by definition Stupid Good.

I'd rather use "Chronic Drunk Drivers intoxicated to the point of being a danger to everyone else" as an example of 'Minorly' Evil People Being Killed On Sight over Litterers (Who don't ping as evil). Then again, after the death of too many good people (Some close to me) from drunk drivers, killing people for driving drunk is definitely something I'd consider a Good Act. It's stupid Good if you kill them when they're driving and the loss of control would kill more innocents. It becomes Lawful Stupid if you just kill drunks regardless of ability to handle their intoxication or awareness of their drunk driving problem. (I can't be too judgemental of all drunk drivers, though, since I only barely avoided a DUI once after friends who should have known better talked me into driving home after they let me have too many mixed drinks I didn't know the potency of. Never doing that ever again.)


What makes killing Evil things "Stupid" Good (While still Good), is the social repercussions... especially with Paladins and their Evildar. For some reason, not everyone trusts the word and judgement of a paladin (They really should), and cannot see what a Paladin sees. When people see a Paladin cut down a man simply for pinging 'evil', they ignore what that alignment actually means, do not see the Evil for themselves, and do not trust the Paladin's word on it - instead, they see someone cut down a man who's probably seeming to be minding his own business, even if his own business is actually something that results in the death and suffering of innocent people. And, then there's also the "Power Vaccuum" issue of killing Evil - While it may be "Good" in the short run, the loss of services provided by that evil person can lead to long-term suffering as other forces move in and fill the void, many worse than the original evil.

[Jay R]

One of the problems with the D&D alignment system is that it presents goo and evil as equal, independent things. It's just not so.

There are things I want to do. There are things I'm supposed to do. When they don't conflict, there is no moral choice - I do what I want, which is also what I'm supposed to do.

But they often conflict. An evil act is doing what I want when it conflicts with what I'm supposed to do. A good act is doing what I'm supposed to do when it conflicts with what I want to do.

A moral choice isn't choosing between being evil and being good. It's choosing between doing what I want and doing what I'm supposed to.

If I find a wallet with $100 and ID, I might:
1. Keep it. I don't do this to be evil. I do it to have $100.
2. Give it back to the owner. I do this because it's the right thing to do, not because I don't want $100.

Therefore, nobody does something because it's evil. They do it for selfish reasons. But they refrain from doing it because it's good.

[Talakeal]

One of the problems with the D&D alignment system is that it presents goo and evil as equal, independent things. It's just not so.

There are things I want to do. There are things I'm supposed to do. When they don't conflict, there is no moral choice - I do what I want, which is also what I'm supposed to do.

But they often conflict. An evil act is doing what I want when it conflicts with what I'm supposed to do. A good act is doing what I'm supposed to do when it conflicts with what I want to do.

A moral choice isn't choosing between being evil and being good. It's choosing between doing what I want and doing what I'm supposed to.

If I find a wallet with $100 and ID, I might:
1. Keep it. I don't do this to be evil. I do it to have $100.
2. Give it back to the owner. I do this because it's the right thing to do, not because I don't want $100.

Therefore, nobody does something because it's evil. They do it for selfish reasons. But they refrain from doing it because it's good.

What about spite? I don't need 100 dollars, but I will take it simply to deprive you because I don't like you?

[Sith_Happens]

On the other hand, 'I do it because it's the wrong thing' isn't really seen in reality

It's often seen quite believably in fiction, though. Case in point: the Joker in The Dark Knight. "Some men just want to watch the world burn" indeed.

[SiuiS]

It's often seen quite believably in fiction, though. Case in point: the Joker in The Dark Knight. "Some men just want to watch the world burn" indeed.

The problem is, the idea you're supporting there (even diabolus advocati) propsed that these people are rational actors. The joker was specifically supposed to be insane.

[Tengu_temp]

Then again, after the death of too many good people (Some close to me) from drunk drivers, killing people for driving drunk is definitely something I'd consider a Good Act.

So edgy I cut myself.

[Sith_Happens]

The problem is, the idea you're supporting there (even diabolus advocati) propsed that these people are rational actors. The joker was specifically supposed to be insane.

I see no such proposition.

[Sartharina]

The problem is, the idea you're supporting there (even diabolus advocati) propsed that these people are rational actors. The joker was specifically supposed to be insane.

He's a rationalizing actor. And even then - the Joker was someone who had a worldview he wanted to demonstrate. And believe it or not, there are people who commit atrocities just to 'make noise' and assert themselves in the world, and are as sane as everyone else. I think there's merit to the idea that Sanity is just the most commonly-accepted form of Insanity.


... and threadjumping in response to the subject.

Sure. That doesn't make it any less psychotic. The universe happens to label people semi-arbitrarily. That does not give anyone the right to wipe out a people group they deem unworthy to live.

Not semi-arbitrarily. People who are Evil or Good earn those labels, or are made of those labels. And they do have the right to wipe out a group they are in absolute opposition to.

[Tengu_temp]

Not semi-arbitrarily. People who are Evil or Good earn those labels, or are made of those labels. And they do have the right to wipe out a group they are in absolute opposition to.

That's a very absolutist, black and white view on good and evil. Even at its most morally simplistic DND is canonically more complex than that.

[Sartharina]

That's a very absolutist, black and white view on good and evil. Even at its most morally simplistic DND is canonically more complex than that.

This is a cosmic war we're talking about. There's a reason Neutrality is embraced as a moral stance, seeing both Good and Evil as hostile-to-human-life-as-we-know-it. Evil loves to see people suffer. Good has no room for mortal foibles.

[Slipperychicken]

people are rational actors.

If by "Rational", we mean to refer to the rational decision process (one expression of which is detailed in this picture), then no. Human decision-making, however accurate it can be, heavily relies on heuristics (basically, cognitive shortcuts or rules-of-thumb) which serve to minimize cognitive resource expenditure while still achieving an acceptable result. That means our brains are wired to get us a "good-enough" outcome with the least thought possible, and our decision process has little to do with rationality.

Peoples' irrationality is not only well-known and documented, but it's also consistent and predictable. Plenty of studies have demonstrated this idea, and innumerable people throughout history have learned to exploit (and profit from) flaws in human reasoning.

Also, I've heard it argued that rationality itself is impossible in practice because it requires perfect information.

Spoiler

Show

However, if we take the layperson's definition of rationality, which essentially boils down to good decision-making and objectivity, then the "good decision-making" part is certainly possible, although the objectivity part isn't as likely.

[Tengu_temp]

This is a cosmic war we're talking about. There's a reason Neutrality is embraced as a moral stance, seeing both Good and Evil as hostile-to-human-life-as-we-know-it. Evil loves to see people suffer. Good has no room for mortal foibles.

Almost nobody is good or evil because they consciously side with the cosmic forces of good or evil. For neutrality, that's even rarer - most neutral people are simply normal folk who don't do enough good or evil to count as either, the people who are consciously neutral-aligned are mostly some druids and other crazies.

Also, "killing someone just because they ping on your evildar is still murder and an evil act" is an official rule for both AD&D and DND 3e, while in 4e you have no way of detecting someone else's alignment. Like I said, even at its most morally simplistic DND is more complex than your interpretation.

In fact, defining the forces of good as seeing everything in black and white absolutes and giving free pass to mercilessly slaughtering everyone they see as evil is a rather scary perspective for me. That doesn't sound good at all! LN taken to the extreme, perhaps, but good has to realize life is rarely simple, people's morality is usually way more complex than pure good/pure evil/everything in between, and finally, justice needs room for redemption.