"But I didn't do anything!" - Falling to Evil without taking actions?

[Silly Name]

IMPORTANT NOTE: I'll be talking mostly about D&D morality, which doesn't always coincide with real life or my own stances on Good and Evil.

IHow much greater would the cost have to get before considering NOT helping him was neutral, rather than evil? Is the risk that he might be a bandit who would repay your kindness with theft or murder enough? How serious must that risk be? Is the frequency with which travelers dying of thirst dragging themselves to your oasis a factor, and if so, at what point does it become such? Is the fact that you have an oasis enough to mean you owe it to anybody you see collapse to go rescue them, no matter how often it happens? How tired do you have to be before "no, I just can't go drag him back here" is neutral rather than evil?

On the topic of "what if he then tries to kill me? what if it is a trap?", I'd say that those doubts should be reasonable. In potency, every person your meet while crossing the street could pull a knife and stab you, but we don't live our lives in fear of this happening, because there's a pretty slim chance (same reason why we don't routinely check up if a meteor is colliding with Earth - while lethal, it's not a day-to-day worry). If you have serious reasons to suspect that the thirsty man is actually a bandit trying to lure you, you are "allowed" to try to understand if that's true.

But still, Good in D&D can also consist of putting yourself at risk, to go above and beyond what's expected of you. An extremely Good D&D character may still risk her life by helping the possible bandit because her conscience won't allow her to ignore his pleas.

Which is really the point here: there are some cases where inaction may be Evil or Neutral, depending on the specifics, but Good doesn't care about what cost it has to pay. A Good character will sacrifice their life for another's - or at least, that's what their alignment leans towards. Obligatory comment about mortals in D&D not being always a perfect incarnation of their alignments.

Then, there's the other side of the coin. Just how much benefit must accrue to the beneficiary through your action before it is required you perform the action for their sake, lest you be "evil through inaction?" We're setting up extremes, here: they'll die of you don't." Is that the limit? What if they'll just be in great pain? Are you evil for refusing to take action to prevent somebody from losing a limb, if you know they'll survive? What if you refuse to prevent a beating that you easily could stop, because you know the victim will live? What about preventing a theft; are you evil for not taking the time to look over and glare at a thief to let him know you see him when he's about to snatch a little old lady's purse?

I'd argue that in D&D-land, knowing that you're allowing Evil to pass while being in a position to prevent that Evil counts as Evil in itself. Remember that Good is defined as "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings". Emphasis on that last part - dignity of sentient beings. A Good character will intervene to stop a bully who's taunting another child, just as much as they would intervene to save another person's bodily integrity.

Also, another obligatory caveat about feasibility of those actions. There exist extenuating circumstances that may prevent a Good character from intervening, such as having to ride fast towards a spot where evil wizards are convening to summon an army of demons. This character probably doesn't have the time to lecture the kids of the village they're just passing through, and they can be excused for putting the survival of the world before a stern talking-to to a bully.

If a group of people are absolutely convinced that anybody who doesn't bear the holy symbol of their faith is going to bring the wrath and destruction of their god upon their entire town, are you evil for refusing to wear that holy symbol in their town, even if you're absolutely positive they're wrong about it? What if wearing that symbol is offensive to you and your culture?

Instead of wearing a symbol, what if their belief is that refusing to eat a particular food in a daily ceremony will bring down that wrath? Are you evil for deciding you are too busy for the ceremony? What if the food is absolutely repulsive to you, are you evil for refusing to eat it, then, or for faking it and hoping they don't notice?

Are you evil for inflicting the terror they will feel at knowing somebody is violating this stricture, by refusing to adhere to it?

This seems to be beyond the scope of alignment, if I'm being honest.

Just how much harm - physical or emotional - must be the consequence to others of your inaction for your inaction to be evil, not neutral? Just how much cost to you must accrue in taking action for inaction to be neutral, and not evil? At what point do those who expect/demand your action become the ones who are committing evil for their requirements that you act as they demand, in terms of cost to you? At what point do they stop being evil for making these demands or even compelling your action if their need is great enough?

Well, the answer is that there's no easy formula to calculate all this sort of stuff. Morality isn't a mathematical problem that can be solved by general formulas, you need to evaluate every situation, and the "tipping point" may be clear in one scenario but foggy in another.

[MR_Anderson]

What you said...

Very well said.

However, I don’t think we want to discuss where a line is as there would never be agreement, so that should be left to the DM. Yet there is a line, and that line does mean failing to act could result in falling to Evil.

[liquidformat]

Due to an ongoing debate in another thread, the question arose how a Good aligned creature might come to change in alignment all the way to Evil without:

a) taking any Evil action.
b) being subject to any alignment-altering magic.

Falling is generally much easier than redemption, so seems to me there should be routes towards this, but can't point to anything atm.

As has already been said choosing to take no action is in itself taking an action. However, the reason you take an action is as important as the action you take.

If a Good Character saw an individual fall overboard and just ignored it.

I am not so certain this is always an evil act. Let's for example look at a group of fishermen on a boat in a horrid storm you as captain are navigating the boat and you see one of your crewmen swept overboard and immediately disappear in the waves. What are you supposed to do? You can't see the crewman, don't know where he went, and most likely trying to turn the ship around and search for the crewman will capsize the boat potentially killing everyone else, even just diverting your thoughts to the crewman who fell overboard to lead to capsizing the boat because you aren't paying enough attention to navigating the treacherous storm. Are you supposed to stop everything and most likely kill everyone on the boat to try and save someone who is most likely already dead? Is ignoring this person and focusing on saving everyone else on the boat evil? Is it evil to ignore the safety of everyone else and try and find and maybe save this one person?

In my opinion the captain ignoring the crewman who fell overboard and focusing on ensure the boat doesn't capsize is the 'good' aligned option.

Another example I am traveling through the desert already very dehydrated and have been rationing my water in hopes of making my way to an oasis. I have enough water even rationing for maybe another day I am guessing it will take 2 to 3 more days to get to the oasis. I come across someone else who is on the brink of death from dehydration, me giving them water might prolong their life a little longer but will surely doom us both to death. Is giving them water and ensuring we both die a 'good act'?

This one is a bit of a grey area, ignoring the person is not an evil action and I wouldn't this would be an action to make you fall to neutral, but it also doesn't seem like a 'good' action either. At the same time I don't think giving the person your water and ensuring that you both die is a 'good' action either, and if it is then it falls under 'stupid good'.

[Zanos]

I don't agree that doing nothing can be Evil. I agree that not helping can make you Neutral, but it can't make you Evil. Walking away from a situation should always be a valid Neutral option.

I think it's also important to remember that a lot of cosmologies will consign Evil souls to one of the Lower planes upon your death. It would be really, really weird to be sentenced to an eternity of torture just for thinking Evil thoughts, and I am pretty sure the 3.5 alignment books outline that you must do something Evil to be Evil.

[liquidformat]

I don't agree that doing nothing can be Evil. I agree that not helping can make you Neutral, but it can't make you Evil. Walking away from a situation should always be a valid Neutral option.

I think it's also important to remember that a lot of cosmologies will consign Evil souls to one of the Lower planes upon your death. It would be really, really weird to be sentenced to an eternity of torture just for thinking Evil thoughts, and I am pretty sure the 3.5 alignment books outline that you must do something Evil to be Evil.

As was stated with Baalzebul already just thinking 'evilly' is enough, at least if you are an outsider. Which honestly makes sense for outsiders but not humanoids since humanoids aren't inherently a specific alignment.

On the other hand I think there are situations where not doing anything could inherently be an evil act. For example a very powerful character perfectly capable of stopping something like genocide of a people with little threat to themselves but not doing so because those people don't 'concern' said powerful character. For instance lets say a large band of evil orcs are heading to a village with the goal of killing everyone present and taking away all the wealth of the village. A good aligned wizard who has setup their mage tower close by through divination knows the attack is imminent but chooses to do nothing because their magical research is more important.

Another one from a book I am reading a prince is visiting a boarder city for an inspection and happens to be on the walls of the city. At that time a unit of soldiers out to scout returns with an enemy force hot on their heels. Most of the scouting unit is dead only the leader and a few others are left and there are around 100 enemy soldiers chasing them, the city has a standing army of 10k soldiers. A stray arrow comes close to the prince on the wall so he instructs the army of the city not to engage the enemy and only defend if the city itself is assaulted because of extreme fear for his life. As such the army in the city simply watch as the scouting party pleading for the gate to be open and to be saved are slaughtered.

In both of these cases the choice to do nothing is inherently evil.

[Silly Name]

I am not so certain this is always an evil act. Let's for example look at a group of fishermen on a boat in a horrid storm you as captain are navigating the boat and you see one of your crewmen swept overboard and immediately disappear in the waves. What are you supposed to do? You can't see the crewman, don't know where he went, and most likely trying to turn the ship around and search for the crewman will capsize the boat potentially killing everyone else, even just diverting your thoughts to the crewman who fell overboard to lead to capsizing the boat because you aren't paying enough attention to navigating the treacherous storm. Are you supposed to stop everything and most likely kill everyone on the boat to try and save someone who is most likely already dead? Is ignoring this person and focusing on saving everyone else on the boat evil? Is it evil to ignore the safety of everyone else and try and find and maybe save this one person?

In my opinion the captain ignoring the crewman who fell overboard and focusing on ensure the boat doesn't capsize is the 'good' aligned option.

What's important here is that the captain has authority, and therefore responsibility, for all the people on the boat. As you point out, he can't risk the whole boat for one man, because while (D&D) Good dictates he should be willing to risk his own life for someone else's, he can't risk the lives of others.

This is an example of the extenuating circumstances I talked about above. The captain is forced to make a decision, and chooses the option that saves the most lives, like how the paladin riding out to stop a doomsday ritual can't stop to help solve a murder.

[Zanos]

As was stated with Baalzebul already just thinking 'evilly' is enough, at least if you are an outsider. Which honestly makes sense for outsiders but not humanoids since humanoids aren't inherently a specific alignment.

I agree that outsiders are different, yes.

On the other hand I think there are situations where not doing anything could inherently be an evil act. For example a very powerful character perfectly capable of stopping something like genocide of a people with little threat to themselves but not doing so because those people don't 'concern' said powerful character. For instance lets say a large band of evil orcs are heading to a village with the goal of killing everyone present and taking away all the wealth of the village. A good aligned wizard who has setup their mage tower close by through divination knows the attack is imminent but chooses to do nothing because their magical research is more important.

That's perfectly Neutral. Plenty of very powerful Neutral archmages explicitly isolate themselves from the world at large to study. A 'Good' wizard who does that would probably become Neutral, but not Evil. The Neutral do-nothing archmage is practically it's own Archetype. It would be trivial for him to stop any number of bad things from happening; he just doesn't care about the problems of normal folks.

The idea that someone could do nothing but study magic in their tower, never engaging with society at large, and eventually become Evil is incredibly bizarre to me.

Another one from a book I am reading a prince is visiting a boarder city for an inspection and happens to be on the walls of the city. At that time a unit of soldiers out to scout returns with an enemy force hot on their heels. Most of the scouting unit is dead only the leader and a few others are left and there are around 100 enemy soldiers chasing them, the city has a standing army of 10k soldiers. A stray arrow comes close to the prince on the wall so he instructs the army of the city not to engage the enemy and only defend if the city itself is assaulted because of extreme fear for his life. As such the army in the city simply watch as the scouting party pleading for the gate to be open and to be saved are slaughtered.

I think this one is a little bit different because the Prince's social role has some amount of built in obligation to help people. In this case the Prince isn't doing nothing, he's commanding people who probably would otherwise help to not do so.

[liquidformat]

What's important here is that the captain has authority, and therefore responsibility, for all the people on the boat. As you point out, he can't risk the whole boat for one man, because while (D&D) Good dictates he should be willing to risk his own life for someone else's, he can't risk the lives of others.

This is an example of the extenuating circumstances I talked about above. The captain is forced to make a decision, and chooses the option that saves the most lives, like how the paladin riding out to stop a doomsday ritual can't stop to help solve a murder.

The interesting question is if you aren't the captain but another person on the same boat and see someone go overboard, let's even say you are a level 3 paladin have no ranks in swim and because you are a paladin you are wearing full plate armor for whatever reason. So if you go in the water you are ensuring you will die and have no way to find the overboard person much less saving them. You are currently tied to the mast to make sure you aren't going to be washed off the deck. Is doing nothing an evil act, will doing nothing make you fall?

If were to free yourself and go into the water you will die and be of no help in saving the person who fell overboard. You yelling and causing a commotion is likely to either have no effect or even worse could cause more people to die as you are distracting the crew from managing the ship which could cause it to capsize. In the end it seems like doing nothing is still the 'good alignment' answer here.

[liquidformat]

That's perfectly Neutral. Plenty of very powerful Neutral archmages explicitly isolate themselves from the world at large to study. A 'Good' wizard who does that would probably become Neutral, but not Evil. The Neutral do-nothing archmage is practically it's own Archetype. It would be trivial for him to stop any number of bad things from happening; he just doesn't care about the problems of normal folks.

The idea that someone could do nothing but study magic in their tower, never engaging with society at large, and eventually become Evil is incredibly bizarre to me.

Let's take it up a notch, same exact scenario and this time the townsfolk flee to the mage tower and bang on the door and plead to be let in. All the good aligned wizard would have to do is let them into the tower not even engage the orcs and they would be saved. But he instead chooses to continue his research. I don't think that is a neutral act.

I think this one is a little bit different because the Prince's social role has some amount of built in obligation to help people. In this case the Prince isn't doing nothing, he's commanding people who probably would otherwise help to not do so.

The Prince is technically doing nothing but I get what you mean. However, I think this might also be an evil act for the soldiers who choose to do nothing at the Prince's orders.

[icefractal]

The interesting question is if you aren't the captain but another person on the same boat and see someone go overboard, let's even say you are a level 3 paladin have no ranks in swim and because you are a paladin you are wearing full plate armor for whatever reason. So if you go in the water you are ensuring you will die and have no way to find the overboard person much less saving them. You are currently tied to the mast to make sure you aren't going to be washed off the deck. Is doing nothing an evil act, will doing nothing make you fall?

Different ethical systems will vary, but from a utilitarian POV, "you" (the Paladin in this case) are also a person, and sacrificing yourself is equally good/bad as sacrificing someone else. So jumping in with the expectation that you'll both die would be a bad thing. And either rescuing the sailor at the cost of your own life or staying on deck while he drowns would both be neutral (a neutral act, meaning no change in alignment, not "you are now neutral").

[awa]

lets go even more extreme you are a precog sitting down reading a book and you see a small child about to pull down a pot full of boiling water down on its head you know the child will suffer grievously for a few month before eventually dying from the injuries; you also know that nearly any action on your part something as simple as word or gesture can prevent this event, but you choose to ignore it.

What if the inaction came because you think the parents should be punished for their inattentiveness?
What if you did nothing because you are a sadist and enjoy children being hurt?

[Silly Name]

lets go even more extreme you are a precog sitting down reading a book and you see a small child about to pull down a pot full of boiling water down on its head you know the child will suffer grievously for a few month before eventually dying from the injuries; you also know that nearly any action on your part something as simple as word or gesture can prevent this event, but you choose to ignore it.

I don't see what's so difficult about the idea that if you can stop suffering with ease, then you have a moral duty to do so. We can come up with various hypothetical scenarios until the end of time, the answer won't change unless you include details that would make it impossible or pointless to intervene.

What if the inaction came because you think the parents should be punished for their inattentiveness?

If you think "I'll let your innocent child die so that you may learn a lesson", you're Evil.

What if you did nothing because you are a sadist and enjoy children being hurt?

Then you're Evil. Doesn't seem that hard to me.

[Zanos]

I don't see what's so difficult about the idea that if you can stop suffering with ease, then you have a moral duty to do so. We can come up with various hypothetical scenarios until the end of time, the answer won't change unless you include details that would make it impossible or pointless to intervene.

If you're Good, maybe. This is basically saying that you can't be both powerful and Neutral, which is untrue.

[Silly Name]

If you're Good, maybe. This is basically saying that you can't be both powerful and Neutral, which is untrue.

In D&D land, you're right, and I'll leave it at that. I should have worded it more clearly, but the point is that you can't be Good and let suffering happen while you're in a position to stop it.

[icefractal]

I'll say that in terms of ... idk, common usage? That proximity does seem to make a difference. Like, if you see someone drowning, you could easily throw them a rope, and you don't, that seems "evil" to me - and I think a lot of people would agree. On the other hand, "you live within a short drive of the docks, but you never go out patrolling them to prevent people drowning" doesn't; it doesn't even seem like something that would prevent being "good".

I'm not sure of what logically justifies that, so I'll need to think further, but it does seem like a common metric.

[awa]

The one complication I had when thinking about this subject is what about neutral outsiders. Obviously a modron stays neutral if all it does is follow rules even if those rules hurt someone, and a salad stays neutral even if its randomness causes unintended harm to someone. So why were they different then the wizard and it came to me that the difference is they aren't people. Real people have a connection to the community and the people around them obligations implied and explicit and so on.

Thinking about this made me more hesitant about my opinions of the wizard in the tower, because the classic neutral wizard in the tower lacks any connection or obligation to the people around him. The classic high level hermit mage really has more in common with the modron than the peasant farmer. That leads me to a dilemma. My next thought is, would it change things if the wizard had built his tower with the pepoles labor on the peoples land under the promise that he would protect them? On the other hand isn't breaking promises more a matter of law and chaos then good and evil. For myself came to the eventual conclusion that breaking that obligation in such a way was both evil and chaotic but I am less confident in my prior opinion that obviously the wizard in the tower is evil.

Part of the complication is we often think of it as two sides of a coin evil or good with neutral just being in the middle but at least for D&D that's not quite right, neutral is its own thing not merely the absence of good or evil.

In the end I still belive that inaction can be evil but the WHY of the inaction is very important.

[Eldonauran]

In D&D land, you're right, and I'll leave it at that. I should have worded it more clearly, but the point is that you can't be Good and let suffering happen while you're in a position to stop it.

This is a very true statement for the D&D universe. Good REQUIRES that you are willing to sacrifice to help others. Scalding your hand to save a child. Giving away your only lunch for the day to someone who needs it more. Just having a benevolent thought doesn't cut it. Helping out when it costs you nothing doesn't cut it, even Evil people can do that.

[MR_Anderson]

If a Good Character saw an individual fall overboard and just ignored it, it would be an evil act.

I am not so certain this is always an evil act. Let's for example look at a group of fishermen on a boat in a horrid storm you as captain are navigating the boat and you see one of your crewmen swept overboard and immediately disappear in the waves. What are you supposed to do? You can't see the crewman, don't know where he went, and most likely trying to turn the ship around and search for the crewman will capsize the boat potentially killing everyone else, even just diverting your thoughts to the crewman who fell overboard to lead to capsizing the boat because you aren't paying enough attention to navigating the treacherous storm. Are you supposed to stop everything and most likely kill everyone on the boat to try and save someone who is most likely already dead? Is ignoring this person and focusing on saving everyone else on the boat evil? Is it evil to ignore the safety of everyone else and try and find and maybe save this one person?

Let me clear this up...

I am a Sailor, 20+ years. When you see someone fall overboard, you report it, and we briefed people riding for more than a day to also know certain expectations.

Additionally, the individual was not explained as being the captain, and even then a Captain would still report it because there are ship’s logs, and crew count need to be maintained.

Furthermore, I did not include circumstances that would exclude acting normally. No rough seas, no in the middle of battle with the enemy, just normal circumstances.

Everyone wants to read into examples.

As for not knowing that you should report someone falling overboard...as a sailor, I ‘ll take that blame, I guess you landlubbers don’t get sea adventures.

[Calthropstu]

Let me clear this up...

I am a Sailor, 20+ years. When you see someone fall overboard, you report it, and we briefed people riding for more than a day to also know certain expectations.

Additionally, the individual was not explained as being the captain, and even then a Captain would still report it because there are ship’s logs, and crew count need to be maintained.

Furthermore, I did not include circumstances that would exclude acting normally. No rough seas, no in the middle of battle with the enemy, just normal circumstances.

Everyone wants to read into examples.

As for not knowing that you should report someone falling overboard...as a sailor, I ‘ll take that blame, I guess you landlubbers don’t get sea adventures.

Former Navy here. If you see someone go overboard and don't report it, you are pretty much on the ultimate ****list if anyone finds out. I wouldn't be surprised to see a captains mast held with a dereliction of duty charge. Possibly even manslaughter. They do not mess around on that.

Considering I saw someone get fined, demoted, derated, lose his sign-on bonus and lose a promotion all for stealing a pen from the NEX, I shudder to think what would happen here.

[Telonius]

On the question of "how much inconvenience" - I know this isn't any sort of an official thing, but the shorthand I use to determine Good/Neutral/Evil (and Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic) is - how far out of your way are you going to go, to act in a Good (or Evil, or whatever) way? If what you do only respects life when there's no threat to you, or when it's easy or convenient, that's not Good. That's Neutral. The border of "how much are you willing to stick your neck out" is pretty fuzzy. But if you make a habit of doing Good when it's hard, it's pretty likely that you're going to have a Good alignment. On the flip side of that, if you aren't willing to do Good even when it's as easy and convenient as can be, that's a pretty good indication that you're (at absolute best) on the border of Neutral and Evil. And depending on how egregious the consequences, that could very easily flip into Evil. That's what I was trying to get at, with the "oasis guy" example.

[MR_Anderson]

On the question of "how much inconvenience" - I know this isn't any sort of an official thing, but the shorthand I use to determine Good/Neutral/Evil (and Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic) is - how far out of your way are you going to go, to act in a Good (or Evil, or whatever) way? If what you do only respects life when there's no threat to you, or when it's easy or convenient, that's not Good. That's Neutral. The border of "how much are you willing to stick your neck out" is pretty fuzzy. But if you make a habit of doing Good when it's hard, it's pretty likely that you're going to have a Good alignment. On the flip side of that, if you aren't willing to do Good even when it's as easy and convenient as can be, that's a pretty good indication that you're (at absolute best) on the border of Neutral and Evil. And depending on how egregious the consequences, that could very easily flip into Evil. That's what I was trying to get at, with the "oasis guy" example.

Given so many possible scenarios, that question is absolutely best left to be resolved between a DM and the Players.

I will say I had a recent discussion with a player about this, as I would like to see his character transition to Good or at least leaning against evil from a neutral sense and at some point fulfill a story arch.

The party was leaving slaves to be supposedly killed by the master using them as labor to build a secret base, secrets tend to be kept in the grave much better, was the reasoning and slaves were cheap.

The party being all Neutral on the G/E axis, and full spectrum on the L/C axis, they tried to buy or free certain slaves, but when ultimately it proved fruitless, they were extra kind to them, but left them behind. This wasn’t an evil act in my opinion, they had no power to overcome the master and his personal guard, and they were hired under an authority that they could not cause bad reputation.

I actually felt there actions leaned towards a good tendency, even though they left them behind to be killed, it built a foundation that if someday they have the power, they might do something for good.

Even had there been any Good Aligned characters in the party, I would not have penalized them for leaving the slaves to die. Sometimes circumstances are beyond the means for a character to act, and sometimes the best choice is to comfort the suffering, and to wait for a day where you have the power to make a difference, thus increasing your power to spread Goodness.

[Malphegor]

There may be situations where inaction is the Evil option.

This is why I like to play warforged paladins. The Laws of Robotics kinda slot in weird ways really nicely with D&D oathbreaking, it just depends on how you define ‘human’ for the sake of porting em to D&D, and how much you want your paladin to still be able to injure evildoers

[Herbert_W]

I don't see what's so difficult about the idea that if you can stop suffering with ease, then you have a moral duty to do so. We can come up with various hypothetical scenarios until the end of time, the answer won't change unless you include details that would make it impossible or pointless to intervene.

If you're Good, maybe. This is basically saying that you can't be both powerful and Neutral, which is untrue.

This conversation has just breezed past another thing that could make the question a lot more complicated: what if there's a large number of people who need help? If helping any one person would involve minimal cost to you - and then helping another person is another minimal cost, and helping another is another, and so on and so forth - but the sum and total cost of helping everyone would be huge, what are you required to do?

There was a hypothetical case raised where a wizard chose to ignore an invasion in order to focus on their research. This was presented as a singular decision to ignore the plight of a single village for the sake of some amount of work - but I'd like to alter the scenario a bit. Our wizard is powerful enough that they could always find a village in peril somewhere in the world and save them. Every time they do anything else, there's at least one village out there that's burning because of their inaction.

There's a sliding scale of possible responses that our wizard could have:

• The Good thing to do would be to spend their entire life running around fixing problems. I don't think that we can justify the assertion that anything less than this is Evil though. The "cost" to them each minute would be minor - it's just a minute's worth of easy work for them - but the total "cost" would be that they never get to do anything else which is obviously a huge burden.
• Alternatively, our wizard might set aside a certain quota of time that they set aside for personal projects. They might justify this by saying that they need time to relax and/or do their own things in order to stay sane.
• Our wizard might spend a limited quota of time and effort helping others, which they believe is "enough."
• They might adopt a strict policy of "if it's not my circus, then it's not my monkey" - because they can't save everyone and can't justify any way of choosing who to save, so they default to a policy of non-involvement by process of elimination.
• They just don't care and don't lift a finger.
• They take satisfaction in the fact that they could help, and choose not to.

I think we can all agree that the first response is Good and the last is Evil. Somewhere down the list, Good switches over to Neutral, and further down to Evil. We might not agree on where the transitions lie, but I think we can agree that there is a way to be powerful and neutral even if we don't completely agree on what it is, right?

[MR_Anderson]

There was a hypothetical case raised where a wizard chose to ignore an invasion in order to focus on their research. This was presented as a singular decision to ignore the plight of a single village for the sake of some amount of work - but I'd like to alter the scenario a bit. Our wizard is powerful enough that they could always find a village in peril somewhere in the world and save them. Every time they do anything else, there's at least one village out there that's burning because of their inaction.

I think that is why Heroes are heroes of their community. They are part of a society, and they do what is good for their society. Some may take up the cause of seeking out and destroying evil, but that mission isn’t required of a Lawful Good person normally, but we would expect it of a Paladin who seeks to destroy evil as a norm.

As Heroes become more legendary (increase in levels) their influence and community impact would certainly expand. Maybe people seek them out requesting assistance from evil somewhere just beyond their community, or a community that has ties to His/Her community.

A Good character should seek to stop evil, but sometimes just being an example of good can meet requirements for doing good.

For instance, a LG ruler of a county finds out that another country is killing certain segments of their population for unjust cause, Does that LG ruler have the duty to take his country to war to save those people? This has played out multiple times throughout history.

I don’t think a good person must always be seeking to find the next evil to defeat, because so often defeating the evil in front of you so you can just live your life is what a good person wants.

[Bohandas]

Doing the right thing for the wrong reason can make a difference. Intent matters. Like it officially canonically matters because fighting fiends makes celestials more good but fiends more evil because of their different reasons for doing it.

[Malphegor]

Book of Exalted Deeds may be relevant here as Exalted characters are encouraged to look at the big picture. You don’t just kill goblins, you figure out why the goblin army were desiring to do evil and you prevent the root causes.

Seems to be that 3.5 makes a distinction between Good Intended Actions and ‘Good That Actually Should Result In Meaningful Change In The Long Term’, though it’s inconsistent.

[Silly Name]

Book of Exalted Deeds may be relevant here as Exalted characters are encouraged to look at the big picture. You don’t just kill goblins, you figure out why the goblin army were desiring to do evil and you prevent the root causes.

Seems to be that 3.5 makes a distinction between Good Intended Actions and ‘Good That Actually Should Result In Meaningful Change In The Long Term’, though it’s inconsistent.

It makes a distinction between Exalted (characters of the highest moral principles, shining beacons of light and good who devote themselves to making the world a better place, veritable saints) and "just" Good (altruistic, tries to do the right thing, respects life and its dignity).

The nice old lady who bakes cookies for all the village's children and tells them stories, and who helps you out if you fall on hard times and always has a kind word for everyone is Good. But she's not Exalted.

The gallant knight who fights against the evil wizard because it's the right thing to do is Good. But he may not be Exalted.

The cleric who spends her every waking moment seeking out evil to destroy it, lessening suffering however she can (be it through healing the sick or comforting the grieving, donating her money to the poor and so on), all the while not caring about her own desires past the wish to see a better world... She's Exalted, or very close to it. She feels a responsibility to use her powers for the good of others, and will not stop as long as she can go on.

Notice that both the knight and the cleric's actions can have lasting results that make the world a better place. But only the cleric is Exalted, because her dedication to Good is so much more ardent than the knight's.

It's the same distinction between degrees of Evil. The greedy lord who overtaxes his subjects even if leaves them malnourished is Evil, but he's not as Evil as the lich conspiring to summon the tarrasque and destroy the world.

[RexDart]

Depends if “ignoring a cry for help from a suffering innocent person in need” counts as an evil action according to your DM.

But alignment issues have no winners in the internet. Talk to your DM is the only way through this thicket that I can see.

Heh. I totally agree.

Broadly, I'd say as a philosophical matter, inaction (especially for individuals or groups with great power) is also a choice. {Scrubbed}

But in the real world, people and countries don't have a bit "G" "N" or "E" symbol flashing over their heads, and as a matter of gaming, I have trouble seeing much benefit to modeling this sort of philosophical "backsliding into evil" principle in a role-playing game.

[Bonzai]

Interesting topic. There is no solid line here just a lot of murky area.

Reminds me of a few in game situations. Both happened in the Realms

1. The party is in Thay. They walk by a man abusing his female slave. The paladin has a choice to make. By law, the man has every legal right to treat his slave that way. To interfere, would be to break the law. On the other hand, the man's treatment of the slave woman was cruel and morally wrong, if not out right evil. To do nothing, would be allowing this evil to continue and make him partialy responsible for the continued abuse.

Player solution: The paladin put a stop to it, without causing any lasting harm to the man (subdued him then healed his injuries). He then submitted himself to the law for his actions, and was sentenced to slavery himself. While breaking the law by interfering, he did so to prevent an evil act, and then submitted himself to be held accountable for his actions. This maintained his moral code.

2. A Necromancer from the Cult of the Dragon creates a town near an Iron mine in the North near the Silver Marches. Under his protection the town prospers. Then the Kingdom of Many Arrows arises, and the area is overrun by orbs. The town is swollen with refugees, but the power of the Necromancer keeps them protected. The Harper's learn of his existence and they are quickly defeated, and he even has a few on display in his throne room as husk globes. The party is then sent into address the problem.

They infiltrate the town, and are shocked to find that the Necromancer is beloved by the populace. Though his laws are strict, and punishments severe, he has been their savior from the orc invasion. He has maintained order, and despite everything they have thrived under his care. The party has a tough decision to make. If they remove the Necromancer, then the towns people will be defenseless and most likely slaughtered. Though lawful, the Necromancer is unequivocally evil. He is growing his power base, and has far greater ambitions and schemes at play. If left unchecked, it could spell disaster for the region and possibly the Realms themselves.

Player solution: The players left him in place... for now. However they did discover and thwart one of his greater schemes. The Necromancer had stockpiled dragon corpses from the year of Rogue Dragons to use as back up bodies for a drcolitch. They found his stock pile and destroyed them. This setback significantly slowed down his plans and gave them time to find a permanent solution. They were hoping the Orc kingdom would fall, and they would be free to act. That never took place.

[MR_Anderson]

A Necromancer from the Cult of the Dragon creates a town near an Iron mine in the North near the Silver Marches. Under his protection the town prospers. Then the Kingdom of Many Arrows arises, and the area is overrun by orbs. The town is swollen with refugees, but the power of the Necromancer keeps them protected. The Harper's learn of his existence and they are quickly defeated, and he even has a few on display in his throne room as husk globes. The party is then sent into address the problem.

They infiltrate the town, and are shocked to find that the Necromancer is beloved by the populace. Though his laws are strict, and punishments severe, he has been their savior from the orc invasion. He has maintained order, and despite everything they have thrived under his care. The party has a tough decision to make. If they remove the Necromancer, then the towns people will be defenseless and most likely slaughtered. Though lawful, the Necromancer is unequivocally evil. He is growing his power base, and has far greater ambitions and schemes at play. If left unchecked, it could spell disaster for the region and possibly the Realms themselves.

Player solution: The players left him in place... for now. However they did discover and thwart one of his greater schemes. The Necromancer had stockpiled dragon corpses from the year of Rogue Dragons to use as back up bodies for a drcolitch. They found his stock pile and destroyed them. This setback significantly slowed down his plans and gave them time to find a permanent solution. They were hoping the Orc kingdom would fall, and they would be free to act. That never took place.

This is a perfect example of why even a LG party would not always rush to remove a LE ruler.