Evil parties and social commentary

[Xuincherguixe]

So, relating to some of my own plans and reading some of the threads I got to thinking.

There are some topics which are pretty uncomfortable ones. But it may be that you really want to include them in your game. It doesn't really matter what specific issue it is, just that you're uncomfortable with it.

With an evil party it becomes easier though. Now, you can have the players do these horrible things to a particular group of people because they're evil. It's basically saying in other words this is wrong because you people did it.

There can also be a sort of dark humor element about it, takes a bit of the edge off but you still get the message across. You can laugh and still be horrified at the same time.


Thoughts?

[Elana]

There aren't many things I wouldn't allow in a game.

But Evil campaigns have the drawback of being a lot of work.
(And as a DM you still end up with a lot of improvising)

Also if you have a bunch of immature players you end up with a session of rape and slaughtering the innocent.
(And in party fighting)


But if you have some players who can stay sane at the possibilities now open to them, it can be un for a while.

(But make sure your campaign gives them a compelling reason to work together, unless you want to relax so the players can be challenges for each other :) )

[Xuincherguixe]

There aren't many things I wouldn't allow in a game.

But Evil campaigns have the drawback of being a lot of work.
(And as a DM you still end up with a lot of improvising)

Also if you have a bunch of immature players you end up with a session of rape and slaughtering the innocent.
(And in party fighting)

I hate to say it, but my Monster Campaign is going to have pretty much all of that. The good news is, most of the rape is probably going to happen to one particular character. They know it's coming though, and the player accepts it.

And oh boy is this campaign a lot of work. Not just because there are a lot of evil characters (I'd like there to be some good ones, but evil works just so well in this), but because it's defying so many conventions. I'm pretty confident it's going to be extremely memorable though. How often does D&D get into existentialism?

There will be a massive, MASSIVE body count.

But if you have some players who can stay sane at the possibilities now open to them, it can be un for a while.

None of us are sane to begin with. Which is only going to make it even more awesome.

(But make sure your campaign gives them a compelling reason to work together, unless you want to relax so the players can be challenges for each other :) )

I certainly don't want the players murdering each other. I'm going to just outright not allow it. However, I will encourage a fair amount of inter party conflict. This is part of why I want some of the characters to be good. A major theme of the game is uniting despite differences, to accomplish great things. Even if you really don't like each other.


Even if you're absolutely horrible, horrible people. Deplorable people can do some good things. Infrequently as it may be.

I don't see it happening, knowing the people involved. But if it does I'll hold the game, and maybe retcon some stuff. They're insane and immature in the way that's sane and mature. It's very zen.


Plus, I think everyone wants to kill Paladins ^_^. (I'm looking at you Chaotic Good Rangers)

[Lord_Kimboat]

Ah, alignment - the old chestnut that no one ever seems to get tired of talking about.

My problem with evil parties (or even evil characters) is why people want to play them. From what I've seen and heard (certainly not everything out there) the most common reason players want to go evil is for freedom. The argument, "our DM won't let us kill/torture/get out own way while being good, so why can't we be evil?"

They tend to see good alignments as restrictive and evil as liberating. I don't believe that this is true though. Shouldn't evil alignments should have the same sort of restrictions as good?

In my opinion, this is actually the DM's fault by wanting to restrict players and using alignment to do so.

For example, is torture evil? Probably yes, if the reason behind it is to get a discount at the local inn. But maybe not if it's to find the cure to the plague that is afflicting the city. These arguments can be made for just about every case.

So X of the unpronounceable (and pretty hard to spell) log in ID, I agree with you partially. The alignment problem (at least in my opinion) stems from DMs who want to restrict their PCs actions - but maybe not because it makes them feel uncomfortable. It could be for a host of other reasons.

[quote=Xuincherguixe]With an evil party it becomes easier though. Now, you can have the players do these horrible things to a particular group of people because they're evil. It's basically saying in other words this is wrong because you people did it.[\quote]

True, but you can't have them work for a good temple, or probably even an evil one, because evil people would demand high compensation - probably too high for the temple to provide (a good temple wouldn't be able to afford their extortionate price and an evil one wouldn't pay). Many patrons would have this same problem. Adventure hooks would often not make sense and you could often find the adventurers wanting to join the antagonists and betray their comrades. It just doesn't lead to a long lasting or fun game.

[Elana]

Adventure hooks are out of the window with an evil party.

Evil characters act instead of reacting.

This means, they must come up with plans to get rich, powerfull or whatever and a way to deal with those pesky heroes that would show up :)



And I wouldn't restrict player with alignment. I just would adjust alignment according to the way they act.
(And yes torture is always evil, and rarely gets true results (Well, they certainly tell you whatever you want and confess everything))

The only time alignment matters at all is for certain spells and some magical items.
(Well and of course for some classes)

[Tobaselly]

Adventure hooks are out of the window with an evil party.

Evil characters act instead of reacting.

This means, they must come up with plans to get rich, powerfull or whatever and a way to deal with those pesky heroes that would show up :)

Evil characters require more personal attention to draw them properly into the story. Plot hooks have to cater to individual character desires instead of the desires of the group.

[Jayabalard]

For example, is torture evil? Probably yes, if the reason behind it is to get a discount at the local inn.

Yup, evil

But maybe not if it's to find the cure to the plague that is afflicting the city. These arguments can be made for just about every case.

Nope, still evil. I'm sure that it's possible to come up with an "ends justify these means" type argument for just about every case, those arguments are just false in every one of those cases.

Being a good guy is limiting, and being a bad guy is not. That's the appeal of the dark side.... quick, easier, more seductive.

[Tengu]

I think that evil parties attract mostly very immature people - those that consider dark, cruel et cetera badass, and good boring and stupid. What a pity that it's become such a trend lately - each time someone says "evil will always win because good is dumb!", I wish I could hit people with a hammer via the internet.

[Lord_Kimboat]

Nope, still evil. I'm sure that it's possible to come up with an "ends justify these means" type argument for just about every case, those arguments are just false in every one of those cases.

Being a good guy is limiting, and being a bad guy is not. That's the appeal of the dark side.... quick, easier, more seductive.

I disagree on both counts. Let's go to something like murder. Is a paladin allowed to kill an orc that it encounters in the wilderness? Sure, the paladin might use detect evil and say, "yep, that orc is evil." But it may not have committed any crimes, or is just being an orc punishable by death?

What about a farmer that happens to be plowing a field nearby? The paladin, using his detect on the orc, also finds that the farmer is evil. Should he be killed as well?

If you're going to use Jedi Knights as your guide (presumably as paladins) then they should not be able to fight in armies, or fight at all unless it is to protect someone's life (fairly hypocritical if you ask me - "Don't try to kill that person, if you do, I'll kill you instead?").

I've always felt that one has to look at the intention behind the act - the 'mens rea' or guilty mind/intent.

[Ulzgoroth]

Well, only, you see...evil often does win because good often is dumb.

Good, to still be good, has to be willing to sacrifice itself for certain things of no strategic value, and furthermore to want to do so. Evil can and should attempt to exploit this to draw good into unfavorable positions, and potentially to ultimately destroy them. The paladin will generally jump in front of the annihilation beam to save a couple commoner-1s. And if we're all lucky, the world won't be doomed as a result.

To avoid being 'dumb' in this way is both against the natural inclinations of good characters, and a path that risks falling into the neutrality of cold-blooded efficiency.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I disagree on both counts. Let's go to something like murder. Is a paladin allowed to kill an orc that it encounters in the wilderness? Sure, the paladin might use detect evil and say, "yep, that orc is evil." But it may not have committed any crimes, or is just being an orc punishable by death?

Sadly, Detect Evil doesn't work like that. A simple orc won't generate an evil aura, except if they are quite high level. Outsiders, Undeads and clerics generate aura, as stated by their class descriptions.

What about a farmer that happens to be plowing a field nearby? The paladin, using his detect on the orc, also finds that the farmer is evil. Should he be killed as well?

Same as above. If the farmer DO register as evil, it means that he has a good reason to show on the radar. A simple evil NPC commoner won't, so no reason to kill him.

If you're going to use Jedi Knights as your guide (presumably as paladins) then they should not be able to fight in armies, or fight at all unless it is to protect someone's life (fairly hypocritical if you ask me - "Don't try to kill that person, if you do, I'll kill you instead?").

I've always felt that one has to look at the intention behind the act - the 'mens rea' or guilty mind/intent.

Jedi code means you avoid violence as necessary. You can fight in a war (the clone war being a good example) and kill a lot, because the circumstances are extenuating. But you don't attack if it's unnecessary.

And Paladin are NOT jedi, whatever you say. There are jackass paladins, and there are comprehensive paladin. the Miko/Hinko comparaison clearly shows it. It all comes up to the code your paladin is following. A paladin of St-Cuthbert =/= Paladin of Pelor =/= Paladin of Heironeous =/= Any other freaking God that allows paladin. They all have different code of conduct, and priority of morality. Even within a same order of Paladin, there can be different SECT of Pelor.

so no "paladin code of morality" is absolute to all paladin, but it should not be flexible. You should set with your DM the "Commandments" of your paladin order/sect, in order for you to never stray from it.

And indeed, NEVER will the end justify the mean. The BoED clearly states that is someone commit an evil act for the greater good, it's a clear victory for Evil, because the forces of good showed that they can't win. A paladin can't consider loosing his status of paladin as a "sacrifice" for the greater good, because it would mean that in the Great Order of Things, the forces of good would have lost one of their champion. And that is worse than having a city wiped out. Lives are less important than ONE soul.

[Ulzgoroth]

Sadly, Detect Evil doesn't work like that. A simple orc won't generate an evil aura, except if they are quite high level. Outsiders, Undeads and clerics generate aura, as stated by their class descriptions.

Cough. Any evil being will generate at least a faint aura (despite some text in the books suggesting otherwise).

I also contest that the BoED is mindless tripe, but if you do follow it, how can you at the same time suggest that the paladin code written in the PHB is deity-dependent?

[Jayabalard]

I disagree on both counts. Let's go to something like murder. Is a paladin allowed to kill an orc that it encounters in the wilderness? Sure, the paladin might use detect evil and say, "yep, that orc is evil." But it may not have committed any crimes, or is just being an orc punishable by death?

Not all killing is murder. All murder is evil (by definition, murder is evil). If the paladin murders the orc, that's an evil act. If the paladin kills the orc in self defense, or in the active defense of others, or during a battle/war, that's not murder and isn't evil.

If you're going to use Jedi Knights as your guide (presumably as paladins) then they should not be able to fight in armies, or fight at all unless it is to protect someone's life (fairly hypocritical if you ask me - "Don't try to kill that person, if you do, I'll kill you instead?").

I'm not sure where jedi comes into this... did someone else bring them up?

Not that I see anything hypocritical about "Don't try to kill murder that person; if you do, I'll kill you to prevent it."

[ZeroNumerous]

"evil will always win because good is dumb!"

Good is dumb. It's entirely reactionary to Evil. Evil lets a party take initiative and go forward with their character's goals. Good, being reactionary, has to do things that the DM strings them along for. Maybe he'll let them deal with their personal goals. Maybe he won't? Who knows.

[Winterwind]

I believe there are two reasons for, or rather two ways of playing evil characters, one I consider good and one I consider bad.

The good one is playing the evil character in order to explore his psychology - presumably, in the moment the character realises the evil of her/his ways. What will follow? Redemption? Desperation? Or satisfaction? Social commentary is also possible - is the world bad enough to fully accept and, possibly, even reward being evil, or are there still some borders left?

The bad one is simply playing the evil character for the sake of being evil. I think there are two causes for this, which have to come together in order for this to happen. The first one is, as Tengu said (who I absolutely agree with), the players thinking evil is badass. This is, it seems to me, partially caused by the evil guys in movies/books/whatever so often being much more interesting personalities than the heroes (for a good reason - the villain is often the active force in the conflict, the hero only counteracting), and partially by an immature spirit of being a rebel ("look, we're breaking the rules!"). The second one is the players not thinking far enough. They go "yay, my minions will conquer that kingdom!", but don't stop a second to picture the wounded woman, who is hiding in the straw and is going to survive the battle, who is watching, tears streaming, as her children are raped and slaughtered. If the players went as far as to imagine that scene and think about what must be going on in said woman's heart, I wonder whether they would still claim evil was "cool" somehow...

[Tengu]

Good is dumb. It's entirely reactionary to Evil. Evil lets a party take initiative and go forward with their character's goals. Good, being reactionary, has to do things that the DM strings them along for. Maybe he'll let them deal with their personal goals. Maybe he won't? Who knows.

So good people aren't allowed to take initiative and pursue their own goals? That's absurd.

Oh, and I agree with Winterwind. He hits the spot. While ZeroNumerous gets hit by a hammer.

[Xuincherguixe]

Sorry to the people above, was looking at other threads too.

Alright, let's do this in order...

My problem with evil parties (or even evil characters) is why people want to play them. From what I've seen and heard (certainly not everything out there) the most common reason players want to go evil is for freedom. The argument, "our DM won't let us kill/torture/get out own way while being good, so why can't we be evil?"

Alright, here's why I like evil characters. They're FUN. Now there's something to be said for characters who are evil with character. But sometimes you just feel like casting a fireball on that village. Now don't get me wrong, I've made some good guys too. If I get a chance I'd like to give a Paladin a shot. But most of my characters have been very dark. They are however by in large still heroic.

Making social commentary in your own actions seems to be another possibility, but it doesn't happen often. It seems like it's going to happen with one of the players in my upcoming game. But yeah. Evil is fun is really the only reasonable argument. Well, fun for some people.

The fact that it is just a game makes for a healthy way of expressing some of the really twisted ideas one might have. And most artists are going to say that there's value in the things most people would consider ugly.

They tend to see good alignments as restrictive and evil as liberating. I don't believe that this is true though. Shouldn't evil alignments should have the same sort of restrictions as good?

It kind of is, and it kind of isn't. Chaotic Evil by it's nature is pretty free. Lawful Evil not so much. The latter also tend to work MUCH easier in parties. If you're trying to run a serious game, it's best if it doesn't turn into a game of kill the other players. That can be fun too, but this is best in games that aren't very serious, with characters that people aren't very attached too.

So X of the unpronounceable (and pretty hard to spell) log in ID, I agree with you partially. The alignment problem (at least in my opinion) stems from DMs who want to restrict their PCs actions - but maybe not because it makes them feel uncomfortable. It could be for a host of other reasons.

Well I have issues with the alignment system, but that's not really what the thread is about. The name I came up with by the way was a Shadowrun character I created (I've got a lot more experience with that game than D&D). I cannot describe to you the sort of things this guy did without breaking forum rules. (I make Book of Vile Darkness look like a bunch of kittens. But many would say being a scale above that one isn't much of an accomplishment) Even if it wasn't for forum rules I wouldn't copy them. The guy was supposed to be very unsettling even to people like me. In a game where everything was very grey, this character was pitch black. Incidently, he came up with the name himself. Dude was insane, he should give himself an insane name.

True, but you can't have them work for a good temple, or probably even an evil one, because evil people would demand high compensation - probably too high for the temple to provide (a good temple wouldn't be able to afford their extortionate price and an evil one wouldn't pay).

I don't really think I can have a problem motivating an evil party really. If it's the group that just likes random acts of violence? All I need to do is put something pure and wonderful there. The party will come up with the rest on their own. If it's a serious game with evil characters, it's about going with what motivates them. I design games right from the start based on what the players are.

For my upcoming game, there are at least two evil characters so far, and one that's getting close. None should be hard to motivate. Again, I hope I get some good characters but even if it does get pulled in a strong evil direction, everything still works.

For what it's worth in this game? Demons and the like aren't necessarily about evil. They're about power, and all more often than not an unending desire for it without a care as to what the consequences are and who you have to step on to get it. It's not that they're evil because they're demons, it's that they're evil because they crave power.

Many patrons would have this same problem. Adventure hooks would often not make sense and you could often find the adventurers wanting to join the antagonists and betray their comrades. It just doesn't lead to a long lasting or fun game.

That sounds like the definition of to me. I would have already assumed they would want to join the antagonists, and have several directions planed based on how exactly it happens. Most likely? Betray the people who they're doing the quest for. Join bad guys. When time comes to split the loot, kill them take it from them.
You can hardly plan an evil campaign the same way as a good one :P

Next poster!

Adventure hooks are out of the window with an evil party.

Not entirely true, but in most cases probably. Yeah.

You need to make the adventure hooks more of, "There is a ceremony the priests of sunshine fluffykins, Kitten God of everything soft and cuddly in which they plan to bring the sacred gold ball of yarn. Just thinking about the disgustingly cuteness of it makes you want to vomit. You can't wait to murder them all and take the stupid, but valuable relic." (Okay, the forcing character emotion isn't appropriate, but hey it's just an example)

Evil characters act instead of reacting.

Almost always true. An evil campaign must be very flexible.

This means, they must come up with plans to get rich, powerfull or whatever and a way to deal with those pesky heroes that would show up :)

*cackles* You'll want to make sure the group has at least one, if not several creative players. And, do not rail road them. I detest linear game play, but it especially is not appropriate in an evil game.

I think that evil parties attract mostly very immature people - those that consider dark, cruel et cetera badass, and good boring and stupid. What a pity that it's become such a trend lately - each time someone says "evil will always win because good is dumb!", I wish I could hit people with a hammer via the internet.

I haven't been in too many evil games myself actually, at least not D&D ones. There are a number of compound problems. The first is that D&D is itself pretty stupid at times (it's why I like to change a lot of the things, good mechanics, good archetypes, poorly implemented plot). Good in D&D largely IS stupid, boring, and dull. It can drive a person up the wall. You need to murder some of those freak'n pixies so you don't have to put up with all their signing and dancing and prancing and AUGH! *stab*

Ahem.

As far as trends go, it's not exactly a new thing? I wasn't even playing D&D and I heard about evil parties and these same issues.

I also think there's a big difference between Immature Silly, and Immature whine. Any of you people played Dungeon Keeper? Yeah, that's what the standard evil campaign should be like.

D&D is neither a very mature game, and it attracts a lot of immature players (chances are that playing the game might help them mature a bit though actually, if they also do not treat the books as gospel). Evil gives them free licence to do very stupid things, which they aren't ready yet for. They will however start to see what happens when all rules break down. In this sense, that very immature game also may be a step in the right direction.


Now, all that being said? There is no reason that you can't have compelling characters that are good. It's a lot easier too. It gets a lot harder with D&Ds alignment the way it is but you can make your character then decide which fits best. People have said that Book of Exalted Deeds sets the bar too high, but coming from the guy who came up with the idea of a spell that alters space and forces someone to eat their own brain I think I could pull it off. The only hard parts about vow of non violence and vow of peace is how do you get past encounters? D&D is a very murderific game and often the only real difference between a good and an evil campaign is who you're killing.

And as far as "good is dumb" goes. If one is really to do a game about good, you should first cripple it. The good gods do not have this overwhelming power. Good does not have legal sanctification. In fact, evil really should. Police, Courts all have the backing and twisting of Evil. Good wins not because it's Gods can beat up Evil's gods. Good wins because the adventurers are smarter. They suffer, keep getting back up when things look down, and frankly outsmart evil. When all you see is yourself, you tend to become very short sighted.



This did take rather a turn from my original intent though. Ah well.

[Knight_Of_Twilight]

I think that evil parties attract mostly very immature people - those that consider dark, cruel et cetera badass, and good boring and stupid. What a pity that it's become such a trend lately - each time someone says "evil will always win because good is dumb!", I wish I could hit people with a hammer via the internet.

This is sadly true in my expereince. I tried to run an earnestly evil campaign, my idea being that these people would make characters who would become serious villains in thier own right, to use in other campaigns. What I got were melo-dramatic idiots that would have gotten slaughtered by several adventuring parties at once for the overt displays of evil they pulled off. ( For gods' sake, they built an ampithetre in the middle of a major city to torture people on.)

Its dangerous, you need to have the right group to do it. Evil characters are nornally fine, in a normal game, but make the campaign "evil" and you probably will hit a speed-bump.

[Tengu]

Be it normal or online gaming, I've yet to see a well-played and non-annoying evil character who would play well with others, apart from slightly bad Jayne types.

[Morty]

What I don't understand is why people tend to treat evil characters as bloodthirsty, soulless villians. It doesn't have to work that way. There are movie-like villians, but there are also "commonly" evil people who are just egoistical, ruthless, two-faced, etc. My current campaign could be in fact defined as evil- or at least more evil than good. But we're doing fine.

[elliott20]

that's why I would never run a game that is explicitly an "evil" campaign. people tend to take that as license to act like morons.

[DeathQuaker]

There are some topics which are pretty uncomfortable ones. But it may be that you really want to include them in your game. It doesn't really matter what specific issue it is, just that you're uncomfortable with it.

With an evil party it becomes easier though. Now, you can have the players do these horrible things to a particular group of people because they're evil. It's basically saying in other words this is wrong because you people did it.

The only potential problem may be that eventually, some player will have his character do something really reprehensible and appear to enjoy it, which may offend the sensibilities of another player (especially if the other player's character suffers from it). It may well be "in character" but the problem is that it becomes very easy for players to start taking personally what other peoples' characters do, and soon you have players arguing, not player characters arguing. This can end up really ruining a game session, if not a campaign.

This is of course only hypothetical and largely depends on the players and any number of situations that might occur. It is still something worth being concerned about. If a GM wanted to try running a "no holds barred, no-PC PCs" campaign, he can go for it, but he should be prepared for players having a lot of opportunities to get out of hand.

Of course, even completely good parties can have tons of conflict within them. Just there are more opportunities for evil parties to do things--which may ultimately leave a player feeling upset or uncomfortable.

[Saph]

The only potential problem may be that eventually, some player will have his character do something really reprehensible and appear to enjoy it, which may offend the sensibilities of another player (especially if the other player's character suffers from it). It may well be "in character" but the problem is that it becomes very easy for players to start taking personally what other peoples' characters do, and soon you have players arguing, not player characters arguing. This can end up really ruining a game session, if not a campaign.

Yup. This is my problem with evil campaigns, and the reason I've never tried playing in one, because I know very well that within a few sessions I'll be trying my best to get the rest of the party killed just because I find them so revolting. Case in point:

I hate to say it, but my Monster Campaign is going to have pretty much all of that. The good news is, most of the rape is probably going to happen to one particular character. They know it's coming though, and the player accepts it.

If that was my character, then I can guarantee that within one session, two at the most, either I'd be dead or they would be. Understand that the gameworld can be an ugly place, and that kind of thing is a danger to avoid? Yes. Accept it happening to me and then co-operate with the party member afterwards? Like hell.

- Saph

[elliott20]

well, I think to make an "evil" campaign convincing, a GM would have to introduce a moral framework where being evil has it's reasons to be and has it's... god forbid... "merits". i.e. slavery in a society where people kind of accept the fact that slavery will happen and it's part of how people run their economy.

The problem is, a lot of people run "evil" campaigns akin to a complete moral vacuum like in a Grand Theft Auto game where your crimes have almost no consequences. and in that context, evil just becomes silly, stupid, and very short sited.

In fact, I dare say that an evil campaign takes MORE work because you now have to find a compelling enough reason for the players who are playing evil characters to work together despite their selfish tendencies.

[Counterspin]

I've been in two "evil" campaigns, and I've run one strongly neutral one. IThe key to such campaigns is that, most of the time, the characters have to be able to rely on each other. I've dealt with this by requiring a certain level of party cohesion, and haven't had any trouble with it degrading into something negative.

[elliott20]

that kind of cohesion is possible, I think. But it's very difficult to do. It requires that the players can play evil characters in a fashion that makes them sound like... well... REAL characters who just happened to be evil, as opposed to characters who sole existence is to JUST be evil.

[Xuincherguixe]

If that was my character, then I can guarantee that within one session, two at the most, either I'd be dead or they would be. Understand that the gameworld can be an ugly place, and that kind of thing is a danger to avoid? Yes. Accept it happening to me and then co-operate with the party member afterwards? Like hell.
- Saph

Completely fair. And also this is exactly why one needs to clear up issues like this before hand. I wouldn't pull something like this on anyone that had a problem with it.

[Talya]

Evil parties can be hooked into adventure just as well as good ones...you just have to make sure that the apparent results of embarking on said adventure appeals to their character motives.

[horseboy]

If you're going to do "evil" campaign, the easiest thing to do is just completely remove alignments. Don't tell them it's good, don't tell them they've got to be "evil". Just let them be the character they want. You've been in Shadowrun, you know how easy it is just to say: "Slot this, let's just blow up his restaurant while he's there."

[LotharBot]

So good people aren't allowed to take initiative and pursue their own goals? That's absurd.

Absurd, but often true in certain forms of literature, and often the way it plays out in RPG's. The evil characters have an agenda, and the good characters are entirely defined by reacting to and interrupting the evil agenda. I've read a lot of stories and played a lot of RPG's like that, wherein at the end of the story, the only thing you could say about the protagonist is that he stopped the bad guy's diabolical plan.

I think this absurd notion stems from a naive view of "good" in our culture. Our view of evil is pretty reasonable -- selfishly seeking your own power, pleasure, etc. at the expense of others. But we turn around and define good as "not evil" or "interfering with evil". We don't recognize good as active for its own goals; we recognize it as passive for its own sake and active only when there's evil to be countered. We don't recognize good as actively seeking to uphold and enhance positive values (like justice, liberty, love, compassion, peace, and kindness). We build "good" characters who spend the whole campaign stopping the evil guy from doing evil things, but never take a moment out of their day to show kindness to a stranger or to help some friends settle their differences.

Often, our spectrum of actual characters runs from "evil" to "neutral with slight good tendencies and DM restrictions against doing evil things". We forget that we can play actually GOOD characters who make a lifestyle and a habit out of doing good and not merely smiting evil.