How evil can good be? [Archive] - Wizards Community

How evil can good be? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
pale_enchantress
01-07-06, 01:28 AM To start my last 6 campaigns ive played through about 3 years all my characters have been evil. A despotic fey'ri enchantress, A elven master vampire artificier, an Alhoon/ilithid savant, A succubus soul eater, and a Pixy blackguard to name a few.
Now finally im enjoying playing a CN elan that loves doing good deeds but feels there is no reason she can't take what she wants and do what she wants with who she wants. Im mainly wondering what the good characters around me (and especially my ghaele eledrin cohort) should be treating her. In one place it describes that the rightous try to show and convert those of lesser morals (or ethics) But what acceptance is it? Can someone good idealize and admire someone even if they dont agree with their less savory practices. And especially what is the limit of what good can do without breaking the ideals of goodness.
aleshandre
01-07-06, 04:51 AM This sounds to me more like a question about how neutral you really are. A good character may admire any other character for thier good qualities, but be unable to tolerate some of thier unsavory qualities. As a neutral character, you should be concerned about the feelings of the other characters in your party and if one of the things that you consider "okay" offends them, then don't do it around them. If they get offended, then, that's up to them. Whether you continue to do it around them is up to you.
Pandaemoni
01-07-06, 05:11 AM To start my last 6 campaigns ive played through about 3 years all my characters have been evil. A despotic fey'ri enchantress, A elven master vampire artificier, an Alhoon/ilithid savant, A succubus soul eater, and a Pixy blackguard to name a few.
Now finally im enjoying playing a CN elan that loves doing good deeds but feels there is no reason she can't take what she wants and do what she wants with who she wants. Im mainly wondering what the good characters around me (and especially my ghaele eledrin cohort) should be treating her. In one place it describes that the rightous try to show and convert those of lesser morals (or ethics) But what acceptance is it? Can someone good idealize and admire someone even if they dont agree with their less savory practices. And especially what is the limit of what good can do without breaking the ideals of goodness.

I quite sure that one person can idolize another while overlooking their less savory practices. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were both unapologetic supporters of slavery. Woodrow Wilson and Nathan Bedford Forrest were virulent racists (and the latter executed black prisoners of war his forces captured, making him a war criminal to boot). Gandhi, at least in his youth, also displayed some racist tendencies. Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford were anti-Semites. Rommel was a Nazi and Robert E. Lee was a traitor to the Union yet people manage to admire them.

As for what good can do without breaking the rules...I think good characters are entitled to the occasional evil act in the heat of the moment. (If they have time to think it through clearly, then I'd say they don't get such a free pass.) Most of the "bad" acts of a good character, imo, would be acts of omission. A good character might, without good reason, fail to protect the village from bandit raids, or fail to oppose the cruel treatment of the vassals by the local lord. That strains the boundary of their goodness, in my mind (as it is a neutral act), but less so that committing and act of overt evil. (If the good character has a decent reason, like they are in the middle of a time sensitive and important mission so can’t spare the time to protect the village or vassals, then I think they have a free pass to make a judgment call.)
Fox Lee
01-08-06, 02:16 AM I'd suggest that a very important factor in judging whether or not a character can commit an evil deed* but not lose their good status is regret. I mean, sometimes good characters have to do non-good things - the most common example, of course, being a choice between the lesser of two evils. Sometimes there isn't a good solution, especially if your group/GM is into morally tornmenting characters. But I'd say it's important that when good character does something evil, or can't do a good thing, that they regret it - whether that means being angsty about having failed their ideals, trying to atone somehow, playing the gritty antihero, being in denial, having a crisis of faith, whatever.

On the other hand, if they just ignore having done it - or worse, think they haven't done anything wrong - then they're probably genuinely headed toward an alignment shift.

Anyway, to answer the original post, I think it deepnds on the characters in question. I mean, there are some cases (like paladins or exalted characters) where it's very clear-cut; the rest of the time it depends on which kind of good you are, and how that plays out for each character.

For example, a Lawful Good character might be inclined to try to "correct" the behaviour of a non-good character, since they usually feel that maintaining and respecting rules is the best way to maintain peace - on the other hand, a Chaotic Good character might feel very powerfully that you can't impose your ideals on another person, even if you think what they're doing is wrong (in the name of personal freedom). A Neutral Good might not care at all, but side against you if there are conflicts with other characters, since you're the one who's not good. Really, there are so many possibilities.

If there was a general guideline, I'd say that a character who wanted to stay good could travel with an evil character only if the evil one wasn't overtly doing anything bad. Morally ambiguous, sure - stealing a few coins here and there, lying to get past the guards, whatever - just no killing innocents or anything. If the evil one did anything overt, and the good one didn't try to stop them, then I'd call it (though I'd be more lenient if the good character was being forced - all the best evil PCs make themselves so invaluable that they can gradually get away with more and more). Does that sit well with you?

(*In the heat of the moment, or in a forced choice between greater or lesser evils, or the like - a GM should have no mercy for a supposedly "good" character who acts evil for no damn reason.)
aleshandre
01-08-06, 02:54 AM Despite the title of this thread, the question being posed is less "how much evil can a good person commit", but "how much evil can a good person tolerate". The answer is actually as complex as the question is simple. There is no common set guideline that defines a person as good or evil. Nor is there a guideline as to what the person should tolerate. Instead, it is left to the conscience of the individual to set their personal boundries. The place where an individual sets those boundries is what defines them as good, neutral or evil. A neutral person would be more tolerant of evil actions than a good person, but less so than an evil person. A good person can be expected to shun certain things outright and possibly shun the people who commit them, where they don't actively try to stop the person's behaviour. Most good people will overlook "lesser evils", but will not overlook thinks such as stealing, rape, murder, etc. Many good people will overlook lies and misdirection as long as the result seems "harmless" or "good" or if it is a "minor" lie. Some would not tolerate any of these things in the smallest degree. This is where a neutral person will have to mold his/her actions in the presence of the good person so that the other is not offended so much that they will break off the relationship entirely on moral grounds.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
pale_enchantress 01-07-06, 01:28 AM	To start my last 6 campaigns ive played through about 3 years all my characters have been evil. A despotic fey'ri enchantress, A elven master vampire artificier, an Alhoon/ilithid savant, A succubus soul eater, and a Pixy blackguard to name a few. Now finally im enjoying playing a CN elan that loves doing good deeds but feels there is no reason she can't take what she wants and do what she wants with who she wants. Im mainly wondering what the good characters around me (and especially my ghaele eledrin cohort) should be treating her. In one place it describes that the rightous try to show and convert those of lesser morals (or ethics) But what acceptance is it? Can someone good idealize and admire someone even if they dont agree with their less savory practices. And especially what is the limit of what good can do without breaking the ideals of goodness.
aleshandre 01-07-06, 04:51 AM	This sounds to me more like a question about how neutral you really are. A good character may admire any other character for thier good qualities, but be unable to tolerate some of thier unsavory qualities. As a neutral character, you should be concerned about the feelings of the other characters in your party and if one of the things that you consider "okay" offends them, then don't do it around them. If they get offended, then, that's up to them. Whether you continue to do it around them is up to you.
Pandaemoni 01-07-06, 05:11 AM	To start my last 6 campaigns ive played through about 3 years all my characters have been evil. A despotic fey'ri enchantress, A elven master vampire artificier, an Alhoon/ilithid savant, A succubus soul eater, and a Pixy blackguard to name a few. Now finally im enjoying playing a CN elan that loves doing good deeds but feels there is no reason she can't take what she wants and do what she wants with who she wants. Im mainly wondering what the good characters around me (and especially my ghaele eledrin cohort) should be treating her. In one place it describes that the rightous try to show and convert those of lesser morals (or ethics) But what acceptance is it? Can someone good idealize and admire someone even if they dont agree with their less savory practices. And especially what is the limit of what good can do without breaking the ideals of goodness. I quite sure that one person can idolize another while overlooking their less savory practices. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were both unapologetic supporters of slavery. Woodrow Wilson and Nathan Bedford Forrest were virulent racists (and the latter executed black prisoners of war his forces captured, making him a war criminal to boot). Gandhi, at least in his youth, also displayed some racist tendencies. Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford were anti-Semites. Rommel was a Nazi and Robert E. Lee was a traitor to the Union yet people manage to admire them. As for what good can do without breaking the rules...I think good characters are entitled to the occasional evil act in the heat of the moment. (If they have time to think it through clearly, then I'd say they don't get such a free pass.) Most of the "bad" acts of a good character, imo, would be acts of omission. A good character might, without good reason, fail to protect the village from bandit raids, or fail to oppose the cruel treatment of the vassals by the local lord. That strains the boundary of their goodness, in my mind (as it is a neutral act), but less so that committing and act of overt evil. (If the good character has a decent reason, like they are in the middle of a time sensitive and important mission so can’t spare the time to protect the village or vassals, then I think they have a free pass to make a judgment call.)
Fox Lee 01-08-06, 02:16 AM	I'd suggest that a very important factor in judging whether or not a character can commit an evil deed* but not lose their good status is regret. I mean, sometimes good characters have to do non-good things - the most common example, of course, being a choice between the lesser of two evils. Sometimes there isn't a good solution, especially if your group/GM is into morally tornmenting characters. But I'd say it's important that when good character does something evil, or can't do a good thing, that they regret it - whether that means being angsty about having failed their ideals, trying to atone somehow, playing the gritty antihero, being in denial, having a crisis of faith, whatever. On the other hand, if they just ignore having done it - or worse, think they haven't done anything wrong - then they're probably genuinely headed toward an alignment shift. Anyway, to answer the original post, I think it deepnds on the characters in question. I mean, there are some cases (like paladins or exalted characters) where it's very clear-cut; the rest of the time it depends on which kind of good you are, and how that plays out for each character. For example, a Lawful Good character might be inclined to try to "correct" the behaviour of a non-good character, since they usually feel that maintaining and respecting rules is the best way to maintain peace - on the other hand, a Chaotic Good character might feel very powerfully that you can't impose your ideals on another person, even if you think what they're doing is wrong (in the name of personal freedom). A Neutral Good might not care at all, but side against you if there are conflicts with other characters, since you're the one who's not good. Really, there are so many possibilities. If there was a general guideline, I'd say that a character who wanted to stay good could travel with an evil character only if the evil one wasn't overtly doing anything bad. Morally ambiguous, sure - stealing a few coins here and there, lying to get past the guards, whatever - just no killing innocents or anything. If the evil one did anything overt, and the good one didn't try to stop them, then I'd call it (though I'd be more lenient if the good character was being forced - all the best evil PCs make themselves so invaluable that they can gradually get away with more and more). Does that sit well with you? (*In the heat of the moment, or in a forced choice between greater or lesser evils, or the like - a GM should have no mercy for a supposedly "good" character who acts evil for no damn reason.)
aleshandre 01-08-06, 02:54 AM	Despite the title of this thread, the question being posed is less "how much evil can a good person commit", but "how much evil can a good person tolerate". The answer is actually as complex as the question is simple. There is no common set guideline that defines a person as good or evil. Nor is there a guideline as to what the person should tolerate. Instead, it is left to the conscience of the individual to set their personal boundries. The place where an individual sets those boundries is what defines them as good, neutral or evil. A neutral person would be more tolerant of evil actions than a good person, but less so than an evil person. A good person can be expected to shun certain things outright and possibly shun the people who commit them, where they don't actively try to stop the person's behaviour. Most good people will overlook "lesser evils", but will not overlook thinks such as stealing, rape, murder, etc. Many good people will overlook lies and misdirection as long as the result seems "harmless" or "good" or if it is a "minor" lie. Some would not tolerate any of these things in the smallest degree. This is where a neutral person will have to mold his/her actions in the presence of the good person so that the other is not offended so much that they will break off the relationship entirely on moral grounds.