Evil Characters Perform Evil Acts For Good Reasons

[Bartmanhomer]

Hey everyone. It's been a while since I post in D&D 3.5 subforum. So anyway I just thought something interesting. A group of evil characters allies to murder hateful bigots.

Here's the team:

Lawful Evil Female Human Sorceror
Lawful Evil Female Human Paladin Of Tyranny
Neutral Evil Male Human Fighter
Neutral Evil Male Human Death Knight
Chaotic Evil Male Human Rogue
Chaotic Evil Male Human Barbarian

So anyway the bigots hate everyone and everything. So the team managed to approach the bigots doing all sorts of evil acts possible such as torturing them for information then killing them and killing them afterward. However, the team managed to kill the bigots and they consider them anti-heroes. So what does anyone think about it? I love to hear your thoughts and opinions.

[Satinavian]

Well, sounds like some edgy teenager group and their campaign setup.

Otherwise nothing outside of the ordinary. What is there to discuss ?

[KillianHawkeye]

So anyway the bigots hate everyone and everything.

It seems a little weird to have a story using a group of villain protagonists with in-depth character motivations, and have their enemies be one-dimensional "bigots".

I assume there would be more to the story of each antagonist? Perhaps they're just as evil as the "anti-heroes" in their own ways? Or worse, because they're all rich and powerful, and the protagonists are like serial killer Robin Hoods?

Or will it be more like a parody of popular anti-hero stories by having the protagonists actually be WAY worse than the people they're murdering "for good reasons"? Then the real story becomes about how these people are so out of touch with basic morality that they just take everything to extremes like killing somebody for getting their fast food order wrong? And then playing Olympic level mental gymnastics to try to justify their actions? That could be a fun dark comedy, maybe.

EDIT: For some reason, I thought this was about a story being written rather than a possible D&D adventure, but I'll leave what I wrote in case there's still some relevance.

[Eldonauran]

Sounds like something a group of evil characters would do to take care of other evil characters that got in their way, or simply because they could get away with it and be considered less 'evil' than they would for just doing it the normal way. Just a means in which to justify their evil actions to feel less evil for doing them. Nothing that would survive actual ethical or moral scrutiny with any amount of validity.

I'm sure it'll be fun for those who want to experience such a story without digging into the specifics.

[ShurikVch]

Note: Despot - LE variant of Paladin class from Dragon #312 - is, actually, not so much "pro-Evil" as "anti-Chaos", thus - perfectly capable to do even Good acts (as long as they aren't Chaotic Good acts, and help to "expand and grow her domain" in some way, or done in order to "protect and defend her subjects and allies from harm from other forces.")
The problem with it: "She would never knowingly associate with chaotic characters", and two of listed party are CE (and, while text says "knowingly" - it may be hard to claim ignorance, because Despot - instead the Paladin's usual Detect Evil - get Detect Chaos...)

[icefractal]

I mean, not surprising, it's not like evil characters get along with each-other just because they're both evil. Nor even do good characters, although in that case they're more likely to argue or simply part ways rather than going lethal.

Would it change their alignment? Not IMO. Like maybe if they had a "we're bad people, but not THAT bad - we have to stop them" moment and went after the other evil group at significant risk to themselves, it could shift them toward neutral. But if it's just "these jerks suck, let's kill 'em" or "nice unholy sword you've got there, but it'd look better in MY hands" then that's just a normal day in the life of an evil party.

[Bartmanhomer]

It seems a little weird to have a story using a group of villain protagonists with in-depth character motivations, and have their enemies be one-dimensional "bigots".

I assume there would be more to the story of each antagonist? Perhaps they're just as evil as the "anti-heroes" in their own ways? Or worse, because they're all rich and powerful, and the protagonists are like serial killer Robin Hoods?

Or will it be more like a parody of popular anti-hero stories by having the protagonists actually be WAY worse than the people they're murdering "for good reasons"? Then the real story becomes about how these people are so out of touch with basic morality that they just take everything to extremes like killing somebody for getting their fast food order wrong? And then playing Olympic level mental gymnastics to try to justify their actions? That could be a fun dark comedy, maybe.

EDIT: For some reason, I thought this was about a story being written rather than a possible D&D adventure, but I'll leave what I wrote in case there's still some relevance.

It's more like a parody for everything that you said.

I mean, not surprising, it's not like evil characters get along with each-other just because they're both evil. Nor even do good characters, although in that case they're more likely to argue or simply part ways rather than going lethal.

Would it change their alignment? Not IMO. Like maybe if they had a "we're bad people, but not THAT bad - we have to stop them" moment and went after the other evil group at significant risk to themselves, it could shift them toward neutral. But if it's just "these jerks suck, let's kill 'em" or "nice unholy sword you've got there, but it'd look better in MY hands" then that's just a normal day in the life of an evil party.

Well the team is petty evil, not super evil. Of course, they have their moments of arguments but nothing serious and major.

[Crake]

It's more like a parody for everything that you said.

Well the team is petty evil, not super evil. Of course, they have their moments of arguments but nothing serious and major.

Murder is not petty evil.

[icefractal]

Murder is not petty evil.

TBF, based on many published adventures which are claimed to be valid for good-aligned characters, I have assume that murdering evil people is considered "neutral" in D&D.

[Bartmanhomer]

Murder is not petty evil.

True. You're not wrong though.

[Crake]

TBF, based on many published adventures which are claimed to be valid for good-aligned characters, I have assume that murdering evil people is considered "neutral" in D&D.

You may be conflating killing and murder, they arent the same thing.

[Eldonauran]

You may be conflating killing and murder, they arent the same thing.

For some people, terms that are loosely related often become identical in meaning when the situation is useful to them.

[Darg]

For some people, terms that are loosely related often become identical in meaning when the situation is useful to them.

The recipe for political slogans: take a word or collection of words with high emotional value and start slathering it on and in topics where it has no real place to scrounge up people that think you are meaning something other than what is the actual meaning so you get a large group of people behind the slogan which gives a large amount of political power, but everyone is hardly united in the actual meaning of it. This allows the people at the top of the "party" to influence politics the way they want because the meaning is so convoluted they can't be wrong and because most people don't get what they want they keep supporting the "party" because there's always promises to continue on the path of the nebulous consensus ideal that simply doesn't actually exist.

Run on sentences. The greatest political weapon for controlling the flow of a conversation.

[icefractal]

For some people, terms that are loosely related often become identical in meaning when the situation is useful to them.

Meanwhile, some people wait for any ambiguous wording that will allow them to accuse others of malfeasance and feel superior.

But actually, I did mean murder. Having a reason to kill someone doesn't generally make it "not murder" - most murders are for a reason, sometimes an understandable one, like "he screwed me over in a crooked deal, causing me to lose my home" - it still counts as murder.

Self defense? Not really applicable when you're the one who entered their property with weapons out (and sometimes shot first, even). Defense of others? In some modules yes, but "defense of unspecified others at some point in the future, because the people I killed were definitely going to be harming people at some point" is not a defense against murder charges. Punishment for their past crimes? Maybe if you have some kind of meaningful status as an executioner? Which is not typically the case. War? Very seldom is there any kind of declaration of war, and usually neither the PCs or their foes can really be called soldiers for any nation.

"Well you can't use modern definitions of murder, D&D society is very different ..." - this usually just leads to a circular definition. The stuff that adventurers do isn't "murder", because we've defined murder as "but not the stuff adventurers do". What's the point of that, really?

[Eldonauran]

Meanwhile, some people wait for any ambiguous wording that will allow them to accuse others of malfeasance and feel superior.

There was certainly an accusation within my statement, but it was not pointed at you (or the person I quoted). It was towards the kind of people I mentioned. If the shoe fits, however, feel free to lace it up. If there is any 'feeling superior' to be had, it is simply one of being on stable definitional footing. Emotionally, I am neutral on the matter. I just don't want to see this issue devolve into the typical ethical nonsense regarding alignment in the game system....

"Well you can't use modern definitions of murder, D&D society is very different ..." - this usually just leads to a circular definition. The stuff that adventurers do isn't "murder", because we've defined murder as "but not the stuff adventurers do". What's the point of that, really?

...Yeah.

[icefractal]

I suppose I was misled by it being in response to a post that was quoting me. My mistake.

[Eldonauran]

I suppose I was misled by it being in response to a post that was quoting me. My mistake.

No worries. Our methods of communication are imperfect at best, especially when limited solely to the written medium.

[Crake]

Self defense? Not really applicable when you're the one who entered their property with weapons out (and sometimes shot first, even). Defense of others? In some modules yes, but "defense of unspecified others at some point in the future, because the people I killed were definitely going to be harming people at some point" is not a defense against murder charges. Punishment for their past crimes? Maybe if you have some kind of meaningful status as an executioner? Which is not typically the case. War? Very seldom is there any kind of declaration of war, and usually neither the PCs or their foes can really be called soldiers for any nation.

I dunno which modules or players you play with, but most of my experiences if the players are going into an enemy’s home and killing them before talking, its usually in retaliation to something the enemy has already done. Otherwise, usually, it will be investigate first, negotiate second, kill as a last resort. The kobolds and goblins in sunless citadel are a perfect example of this.

[loky1109]

Evil Characters Perform Evil Acts For Good Reasons

Sounds like Devils as they are.

[Satinavian]

"Well you can't use modern definitions of murder, D&D society is very different ..." - this usually just leads to a circular definition. The stuff that adventurers do isn't "murder", because we've defined murder as "but not the stuff adventurers do". What's the point of that, really?

When i am using the term murder in a pseudo-medieval fantasy RPG, i generally take a more medieval meaning.

And that mostly exludes stuff adventurers do. There is a lot more justified and legal killing possible whithout a state monopoly on violence. And even then, there is enough destinction to seperate that from murder.

[Gnaeus]

Meanwhile, some people wait for any ambiguous wording that will allow them to accuse others of malfeasance and feel superior.

But actually, I did mean murder. Having a reason to kill someone doesn't generally make it "not murder" - most murders are for a reason, sometimes an understandable one, like "he screwed me over in a crooked deal, causing me to lose my home" - it still counts as murder.

Self defense? Not really applicable when you're the one who entered their property with weapons out (and sometimes shot first, even). Defense of others? In some modules yes, but "defense of unspecified others at some point in the future, because the people I killed were definitely going to be harming people at some point" is not a defense against murder charges. Punishment for their past crimes? Maybe if you have some kind of meaningful status as an executioner? Which is not typically the case. War? Very seldom is there any kind of declaration of war, and usually neither the PCs or their foes can really be called soldiers for any nation.

"Well you can't use modern definitions of murder, D&D society is very different ..." - this usually just leads to a circular definition. The stuff that adventurers do isn't "murder", because we've defined murder as "but not the stuff adventurers do". What's the point of that, really?

Sure, when Garl Glittergold collapses a cavern system killing untold kobold noncombatants, its a prank, but when I do it, its genocide for some reason. It obviously doesn't shake a Lawful Good alignment, anyway.

[BlueWitch]

Evil people can do good things.
That doesn't make them "Good"

Especially if their motives were not noble.

Unless they are ACTIVELY trying to repent through their actions, I don't see what there is to discuss further.

A single act of good does not make up for a lifetime of evil deeds.