Can a good person do evil things and still be good?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Each player is helping the GM to make NPCs, and one of them has made the head of the Thieves' Guild and insists that he is good. This man steals from the rich to give (very genorously) to the poor in the slums the king doesn't help. However he is also an incredibly wealthy businessman with contracts and deals in every aspect of the city. And if anyone double-crosses him or tries to default on their debts, he has increasingly horrifying ways of torture to punish them. I, er, won't go into details.
I say that his brutality to people he cannot forgive makes him evil, but I sort of get stuck with the argument because he undeniably makes life better for the thousands in abject poverty. The creator of the NPC says he only commits these horrible acts because he's trying to help people, and the people he kills are incredibly rich and greedy.

Please help settle this! :D


2 people marked this as a favorite.

He sounds neutral to me.

Certainly one can do some evil things while still being good -- I'm sure that Martin Luther King spanked his kids, which is technically assault and torture.

But torturing and killing defaulters,... That's beyond Dickensian excesses.

Liberty's Edge

If you're having people tortured to death as a matter of policy, you aren't Good any more. Neutral? Quite possibly, depending on motivation and other actions, but not Good.

All the rest of the things that character does are pretty textbook CG, and he could probably even get away with killing people to maintain his rule and remain Good...but torture? That leads straight southward in Alignment. Torture's Evil, pretty categorically.

A single act of torture (or other Evil act) probably isn't sufficient to make one cease being Good under these circumstances...but a pattern of them? Oh, hell yes.

Sovereign Court

It sounds like a neutral character who thinks he's good.

A good character can sometimes commit evil acts, but that is out of character for him. If he starts to think it's normal or acceptable, he's no longer good.

It's the "two kinds of neutral" thing: there's neutral because you're not inclined to be good or evil, or neutral because you have both good and evil aspects but they're somewhat balanced.


He does what he needs to do to do his job; his generosity probably isn't out of the kindness of his heart (keeping the people somewhat onboard is essential for survival of the Guild), and his tortures are 'necessary.'

Neutral.


toxicpie wrote:

Each player is helping the GM to make NPCs, and one of them has made the head of the Thieves' Guild and insists that he is good. This man steals from the rich to give (very genorously) to the poor in the slums the king doesn't help. However he is also an incredibly wealthy businessman with contracts and deals in every aspect of the city. And if anyone double-crosses him or tries to default on their debts, he has increasingly horrifying ways of torture to punish them. I, er, won't go into details.

I say that his brutality to people he cannot forgive makes him evil, but I sort of get stuck with the argument because he undeniably makes life better for the thousands in abject poverty. The creator of the NPC says he only commits these horrible acts because he's trying to help people, and the people he kills are incredibly rich and greedy.

Please help settle this! :D

Neutral at best.

Keep in mind, the question can be just as easily turned around. "Can an evil person do good things and still be evil?" And the answer is pretty categorically "Yes." You've got a rich businessman who routinely horrifically tortures anyone who gets in his way. Sounds pretty evil to me. Giving money to the poor helps to ameliorate this conduct I guess (in PF morality), which is why he could be neutral ... possibly.

Liberty's Edge

sgriobhadair wrote:
his generosity probably isn't out of the kindness of his heart (keeping the people somewhat onboard is essential for survival of the Guild),

Uh...his generosity doesn't need to be false. It could be quite genuine, and still leave him Neutral. Neutral characters can very easily have virtues and care about others, after all.

Liberty's Edge

Cheburn wrote:

Neutral at best.

Keep in mind, the question can be just as easily turned around. "Can an evil person do good things and still be evil?" And the answer is pretty categorically "Yes." You've got a rich businessman who routinely horrifically tortures anyone who gets in his way. Sounds pretty evil to me. Giving money to the poor helps to ameliorate this conduct I guess (in PF morality), which is why he could be neutral ... possibly.

Well, if his primary goal/motivation is to improve people's lives I think he falls solidly into Neutral by most reasonable definitions. If that's merely a hobby while personal power is his goal...maybe shading into Evil there, yeah.

Lantern Lodge

toxicpie wrote:

Each player is helping the GM to make NPCs, and one of them has made the head of the Thieves' Guild and insists that he is good. This man steals from the rich to give (very genorously) to the poor in the slums the king doesn't help. However he is also an incredibly wealthy businessman with contracts and deals in every aspect of the city. And if anyone double-crosses him or tries to default on their debts, he has increasingly horrifying ways of torture to punish them. I, er, won't go into details.

I say that his brutality to people he cannot forgive makes him evil, but I sort of get stuck with the argument because he undeniably makes life better for the thousands in abject poverty. The creator of the NPC says he only commits these horrible acts because he's trying to help people, and the people he kills are incredibly rich and greedy.

Please help settle this! :D

Was Al Capone "Good" aligned?

From the Al Capone article at Wikipedia: "Despite his illegitimate occupation, Capone became a highly visible public figure. He made donations to various charitable endeavors using the money he made from his activities, and was viewed by many to be a 'modern-day Robin Hood'."


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cheburn wrote:

Neutral at best.

Keep in mind, the question can be just as easily turned around. "Can an evil person do good things and still be evil?" And the answer is pretty categorically "Yes." You've got a rich businessman who routinely horrifically tortures anyone who gets in his way. Sounds pretty evil to me. Giving money to the poor helps to ameliorate this conduct I guess (in PF morality), which is why he could be neutral ... possibly.

Well, if his primary goal/motivation is to improve people's lives I think he falls solidly into Neutral by most reasonable definitions. If that's merely a hobby while personal power is his goal...maybe shading into Evil there, yeah.

Agreed. This depends on actually knowing his motivation though. If he's actually motivated mostly by altruism, that points him towards a solid Neutral. If he donates to the poor so mostly that they help out his Thieves' Guild 'business,' less on the Neutral side of things. In between is a judgment call

And keep in mind, while he's improving lives by giving money to the poor, he's most likely damaging lives by stealing. If he destroys a large business by stealing, he's just destroyed the jobs of all of the innocent people who work there, and negatively impacted anyone at large who made a living that relied on the goods or services provided by that business (in the short term at a minimum).

So ... evil acts: stealing, lying, torture. Good acts: alms (assuming he's not got ulterior motives).


Orfamay Quest wrote:
...spanked his kids, which is technically assault and torture....

Um...how about NO?! Wow....

Speaking to the original post, I agree with those saying the NPC is neutral at best. In the context of D&D/Pathfinder, torture is evil, plain and simple, and within that context one cannot routinely and/or consistently do evil acts and maintain a good alignment.

Liberty's Edge

Captain Zoom wrote:

Was Al Capone "Good" aligned?

From the Al Capone article at Wikipedia: "Despite his illegitimate occupation, Capone became a highly visible public figure. He made donations to various charitable endeavors using the money he made from his activities, and was viewed by many to be a 'modern-day Robin Hood'."

Al Capone's goals were power and money. His generosity incidental. Which would be why he was Evil.

Cheburn wrote:
Agreed. This depends on actually knowing his motivation though. If he's actually motivated mostly by altruism, that points him towards a solid Neutral. If he donates to the poor so mostly that they help out his Thieves' Guild 'business,' less on the Neutral side of things. In between is a judgment call

Agreed.

Cheburn wrote:
And keep in mind, while he's improving lives by giving money to the poor, he's most likely damaging lives by stealing. If he destroys a large business by stealing, he's just destroyed the jobs of all of the innocent people who work there, and negatively impacted anyone at large who made a living that relied on the goods or services provided by that business (in the short term at a minimum).

This depends on the method and degree of theft. Personal or institutional theft is pretty clearly within the realm of CG characters...so I'd argue that it's very possible to do it with the consequences in mind and, say, hire all the people you wind up making jobless for better wages or similar things.

Cheburn wrote:
So ... evil acts: stealing, lying, torture. Good acts: alms (assuming he's not got ulterior motives).

Stealing and lying are more Chaotic than Evil per se, IMO. Doesn't change the conclusion, though.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

He sounds neutral to me.

Certainly one can do some evil things while still being good -- I'm sure that Martin Luther King spanked his kids, which is technically assault and torture.

But torturing and killing defaulters,... That's beyond Dickensian excesses.

No, spanking your child is not, technically or otherwise, assault or torture. Someone other than the parent spanking a child will, in many places, be battery.

Anyway, this NPC is, at best, neutral.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wspatterson wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

He sounds neutral to me.

Certainly one can do some evil things while still being good -- I'm sure that Martin Luther King spanked his kids, which is technically assault and torture.

But torturing and killing defaulters,... That's beyond Dickensian excesses.

No, spanking your child is not, technically or otherwise, assault or torture. Someone other than the parent spanking a child will, in many places, be battery.

Anyway, this NPC is, at best, neutral.

Its illegal here but I agree its one of the better ones to mark a kids memory and teach them not to do something until their old enough to understand Mr shiny fire is not your friend. You don't beat them till they bleed just one short sharp smack is usually enough from what I've read. I mean my mother used a wooden spoon on me and it didn't scar me for life.

Sovereign Court

I recall we had some controversy a while back in the Netherlands about the concept of the "corrective tap", and whether that was just normal parenting or horrible abuse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
toxicpie wrote:

Each player is helping the GM to make NPCs, and one of them has made the head of the Thieves' Guild and insists that he is good. This man steals from the rich to give (very genorously) to the poor in the slums the king doesn't help. However he is also an incredibly wealthy businessman with contracts and deals in every aspect of the city. And if anyone double-crosses him or tries to default on their debts, he has increasingly horrifying ways of torture to punish them. I, er, won't go into details.

I say that his brutality to people he cannot forgive makes him evil, but I sort of get stuck with the argument because he undeniably makes life better for the thousands in abject poverty. The creator of the NPC says he only commits these horrible acts because he's trying to help people, and the people he kills are incredibly rich and greedy.

Please help settle this! :D

Chaotic and selfish He's wealthy, but chooses to steal from others instead of giving of himself.

Chaotic and Evil Justifiing the torture and murder of people because they are "Rich and greedy". Giving to the poor does not "counteract" torture and murder.

He's evil and chaotic at that.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bear in mind the guy is helping hundreds and killing and torturing only a few. In fact, in a good business year he won't have to torture anybody, since a reputation for extreme cruelty tends to reduce the frequency with which you need it. (Note: I am not claiming that a Reign of Terror is better than a Reign of Blood - just less, you know, messy.)

I'd probably call the character chaotic neutral, since he clearly cares nothing for social norms or decent behavior, but has certain moral and generous impulses that keep him from being the total monster that CE tends to represent. Doesn't mean he isn't a villain.

Liberty's Edge

Lincoln Hills wrote:

Bear in mind the guy is helping hundreds and killing and torturing only a few. In fact, in a good business year he won't have to torture anybody, since a reputation for extreme cruelty tends to reduce the frequency with which you need it. (Note: I am not claiming that a Reign of Terror is better than a Reign of Blood - just less, you know, messy.)

I'd probably call the character chaotic neutral, since he clearly cares nothing for social norms or decent behavior, but has certain moral and generous impulses that keep him from being the total monster that CE tends to represent. Doesn't mean he isn't a villain.

I basically agree with all this. For the record.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
he has increasingly horrifying ways of torture to punish them. I, er, won't go into details.

This is pretty much all I'd need to reach a "well, he isn't good and neutral isn't looking too likely either" conclusion.

Now if the extremity were dialed back a LOT, ditching the torture and focusing more on karmic equivalence along with sacrificing his own wealth instead of just others, he could have a shot at being good. As is though, I'd say his actions moving his creator to silence says it all. D:

The Exchange

It does give me an idea for a "villain" who's just an undercover anti-hero, relying on a few very graphic, horrible - and illusionary - crimes to solidify his position over the city's underworld. All his "victims" are locked up somewhere in case he needs some bit of knowledge they'd have. I'll have to steal that.


Lincoln Hills wrote:
It does give me an idea for a "villain" who's just an undercover anti-hero, relying on a few very graphic, horrible - and illusionary - crimes to solidify his position over the city's underworld. All his "victims" are locked up somewhere in case he needs some bit of knowledge they'd have. I'll have to steal that.

That's been an occasional super-hero trope. Green Hornet back in the early days I think.

There was an old Marvel hero. Spider-woman supporting character maybe? Shade? Something like that.


I don't care how many puppy orphanages he opens, torture is an undeniable act of evil. It is also not a deterrent otherwise their'd be no crime in medieval society where torture was government-sanctioned. But even the government was at least trying to uphold order and punish the guilty (remember they believed in guilty until proven innocent.) Your NPC tortures people for petty, personal reasons. How is that not evil?

There are legitimate ways to have a good character do bad things and still be of the good alignment but you have given a really bad example. If he gave freely of his own wealth and kept order in a city but also stole from people, cheated on his taxes, used corrupt business practices (within reason,) then a case could be made. Your example steals from the rich and gives to the needy. He takes a little off the top but he's not greedy. And then he tortures people who slight him or default on their debts.

Torturing people for debts is really stupid by the way even from just a practical standpoint. If you want your money back, how is supposed to get it when he's strapped to a table and you're driving screws into his hands. Depending on how bad you torture him, you could cripple his ability to earn money meaning you'll never get it back. You can't plow a field with shattered legs and broken arms. If it's about sending a message, then the message is never borrow from that psychopath. Then you lose out on making money through lending. There's a reason why Bank of America doesn't send out thugs to kidnap you and then torture you in its dungeons because you missed a mortgage payment. There's moral ambiguity and there's mustache-twirling villainy that would make Ramsay Snow blush.


Larkos wrote:
Torturing people for debts is really stupid by the way even from just a practical standpoint. If you want your money back, how is supposed to get it when he's strapped to a table and you're driving screws into his hands. Depending on how bad you torture him, you could cripple his ability to earn money meaning you'll never get it back. You can't plow a field with shattered legs and broken arms. If it's about sending a message, then the message is never borrow from that psychopath. Then you lose out on making money through lending. There's a reason why Bank of America doesn't send out thugs to kidnap you and then torture you in its dungeons because you missed a mortgage payment. There's moral ambiguity and there's mustache-twirling villainy that would make Ramsay Snow blush.

OTOH, there's a reason the Mob broke people's kneecaps.

We're not talking moral ambiguity, but it's certainly been a viable business model.


thejeff wrote:
Larkos wrote:
Torturing people for debts is really stupid by the way even from just a practical standpoint. If you want your money back, how is supposed to get it when he's strapped to a table and you're driving screws into his hands. Depending on how bad you torture him, you could cripple his ability to earn money meaning you'll never get it back. You can't plow a field with shattered legs and broken arms. If it's about sending a message, then the message is never borrow from that psychopath. Then you lose out on making money through lending. There's a reason why Bank of America doesn't send out thugs to kidnap you and then torture you in its dungeons because you missed a mortgage payment. There's moral ambiguity and there's mustache-twirling villainy that would make Ramsay Snow blush.

OTOH, there's a reason the Mob broke people's kneecaps.

We're not talking moral ambiguity, but it's certainly been a viable business model.

Yeah I thought of that pretty much right after I wrote it. I'd say even the mob knows restraint. You can bust a shopkeepers legs and he can still work the counter. Busting a farmer's legs is much worse for loan repayment. Not to mention, a busted kneecap only takes a few swings and then they're gone. The OP described worse things than that which in my ind turned to holding people and slowly torturing them in his dungeon.

Plus, these tactics worked for a while but it did cause people to turn against organized crime. The people of wherever he's from are going to turn on the guy even if he does donate once in a while. It's not like they'll mind when an actual robin hood type kills/imprisons him, takes all his belongings, and gives 40% to the poor...after reasonable expenses.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
toxicpie wrote:

Each player is helping the GM to make NPCs, and one of them has made the head of the Thieves' Guild and insists that he is good. This man steals from the rich to give (very genorously) to the poor in the slums the king doesn't help. However he is also an incredibly wealthy businessman with contracts and deals in every aspect of the city. And if anyone double-crosses him or tries to default on their debts, he has increasingly horrifying ways of torture to punish them. I, er, won't go into details.

I say that his brutality to people he cannot forgive makes him evil, but I sort of get stuck with the argument because he undeniably makes life better for the thousands in abject poverty. The creator of the NPC says he only commits these horrible acts because he's trying to help people, and the people he kills are incredibly rich and greedy.

Please help settle this! :D

Dr. Doom can be like a stern loving father to his people. Doesn't change the fact that he's a megalomaniacal dictator who might turn on anyone for any imagine slight or failure. A lot of evil people think they see a hero in the mirror.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In a more general sense, a good character shouldn't want to commit evil acts. Everybody makes mistakes, and unless you're a paladin, the occasional slipup that your character feels bad about shouldn't cause any alignment problems.

A (non-paladin) good character who tortures a mook of the BBEG who has the PC's family held hostage in order to get their location has committed a big evil act - but they did it out of frustration, fear, and desperation. Later the character will probably feel very bad about what they did, and may even seek ways to make amends. This was a one-time slipup in an intense situation.

A character who tortures regularly when thwarted isn't really that good. If an evil act is your go-to option you're not playing a good character.


neutral, really neutral.probably chaotic or lawful, depending on your interpretations of lawful, I've always looked at it as a code myself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
toxicpie wrote:

Each player is helping the GM to make NPCs, and one of them has made the head of the Thieves' Guild and insists that he is good. This man steals from the rich to give (very genorously) to the poor in the slums the king doesn't help. However he is also an incredibly wealthy businessman with contracts and deals in every aspect of the city. And if anyone double-crosses him or tries to default on their debts, he has increasingly horrifying ways of torture to punish them. I, er, won't go into details.

I say that his brutality to people he cannot forgive makes him evil, but I sort of get stuck with the argument because he undeniably makes life better for the thousands in abject poverty. The creator of the NPC says he only commits these horrible acts because he's trying to help people, and the people he kills are incredibly rich and greedy.

Please help settle this! :D

Everybody I've known that was actually evil in real life was convinced that they themselves were "good." Sure that this thieve's guild leader thinks so too; a lot of sociopaths kinda do.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's pretty easy to "very generously" give to the poor when it's not your money. The torturing on top of the thievery definitely makes him evil.


Congratulations, OP! You've discovered one of the many, many reasons the alignment system is horrible!

Seriously, this really isn't covered well by the D&D pigeonhole. Neutral or chaotic neutral is probably the best you can do, though arguments could be made for good or evil.. Discussions about how much evil counterbalances how much good amount to philosophical debates that haven't been satisfactorily addressed in all the time humankind has navelgazed about it.

If this were my game but we were still using alignment for some weird reason, I'd say "pick one and justify it and we're good."


toxicpie wrote:

Each player is helping the GM to make NPCs, and one of them has made the head of the Thieves' Guild and insists that he is good. This man steals from the rich to give (very genorously) to the poor in the slums the king doesn't help. However he is also an incredibly wealthy businessman with contracts and deals in every aspect of the city. And if anyone double-crosses him or tries to default on their debts, he has increasingly horrifying ways of torture to punish them. I, er, won't go into details.

I say that his brutality to people he cannot forgive makes him evil, but I sort of get stuck with the argument because he undeniably makes life better for the thousands in abject poverty. The creator of the NPC says he only commits these horrible acts because he's trying to help people, and the people he kills are incredibly rich and greedy.

Please help settle this! :D

I think he sounds straight neutral to me. Yes a good man can do evil deeds and still be good. The NPC has some warped views. He himself is wealthy so he punishes the wealthy when they "take from him". Hypocrite I say. Now if he gave away much of his own wealth and the rich were cheating the poor that would be a bit different but that isn't what happened if I read it right.


Torture? Evil act.
Torture for petty reasons, with escalating and inventive methods? Very evil.
A good character doesn't spend time out of their day working out how to torture people in new and interesting ways. Seeding money among the poor is a good business strategy for a crime lord as it gives your people allies and improves recruitment, so in and of itself isn't a mitigating factor in this situation. The fact that it's not really costing him anything to do so reduces it to little more than a footnote.


While a Good or Neutral character may be justified in permitting or turning a blind eye to evil acts, or maybe committing one and then atoning, routinely causing evils acts is Evil. A Lawful Good character might turn a blind eye when their morally grey party members decide a captured enemy is too dangerous to live. That might be okay, but they should definitely feel bad about it. They might even be able to commit an evil act without changing alignment, as long as it is in exceptional circumstances and the character seeks to repent/atone/make things right.

Even a Neutral character can't go around committing evil acts regularly. They might feel les bad about it than a Good character, but still recognise that these actions are exceptional and deplorable. Doing both good and evil things does not make you neutral, the character the OP describes is charitable but ultimately evil.

Torture is EVIL, caps intended, no exceptions. Screw Jack Bauer and Guantanamo, it's not morally grey it's plain evil. "Increasingly horrifying ways of torture" - this sentence alone means the guy is going to ping as Evil to any Paladin.


People's understanding of the alignment system is bad. The alignment system itself isn't that bad (it isn't that good either).

Lets look at a NPC from the game Lonjiku Kaijitsu. He's Lawful Neutral, he murdered his wife, beat his kid (step kid) so bad he turned into a mass-murderer, was responsible for the deaths of everyone at Brinewall and probably committed cannibalism while he was adrift at sea for weeks. And he's Lawful Neutral, not Evil.

The game even states:

Quote:
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

Single actions don't change your alignment, repeated consistent actions do.

Does torturing a person to find the cure to save a town make you evil? How about letting a town of 1000 people die because instead of torturing the information out of someone you just killed him, is that evil?

You want to torture someone, go ahead, no alignment change. You want to torture people for practice or because you like doing it? Now you're evil.

Here a question - Is bursting into someone home and killing them evil? What if that someone was a goblin? a troll? a ghoul?

I hate hearing that this act or that act makes you evil. Good people will commit evil acts if needed. If your kids were kidnapped and torturing someone would set them free, you'd do it.

Consistent actions make your alignment, not individual acts.

A good person can torture and not become evil.

--

Play with bronze or middle-age moral outlooks, not current ones.

---

As for casting evil spell:
Casting evil spells make you evil? Really? Protection from evil is a good spell, does that make me good?

---

There are specific alignment restrictions in regards to classes. Like a Paladin. A Paladin has to be lawful and absolutely must be good, even a single evil act (willing or not) and he falls. But the lawful part of his alignment gots some swing in it.

Quote:
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability.

-Honor doesn't mean you can't lie, it means you shouldn't.

-Trustworthiness means if you give your word you will do almost anything not to break it.
-Obedience to authority doesn't mean you have to follow the laws of any kingdom, it means you have to follow the law of your god/faith.
-Reliability means your there to help when people need it.
--Closed-mindedness means you can be a bigot.
--Reactionary adherence to tradition means you could follow the rules of your order and not the intent.
--Self-Righteousness means you don't have to listen to others, and maybe even them disagreeing with you impinges on your honor, so now you have to duel to see who's right.
--Lack of adaptability means you don't change the rules you follow when you move to a new area.

Quote:
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

-Altruism is the devotion to the welfare of others.

--So in order to protect people you must rule them so they don't make bad decisions.
-Respect of Life is the admiration of living things.
--You revere life as a whole, not necessarily each member of it. Like a rose bush, it needs to be pruned so it may grow better.
-Dignity of sentient begins mean you value self aware intelligent beings and they should receive the same respect you would want for yourself.
--This is the hardest one to follow for most characters. You can't treat any badly, even your enemies. They should be allowed respect even if you hate them, they shouldn't be put on display (dead or alive), they should be buried (or similar religious obligations). This means no heads on spikes, no trophys, no collecting material components, etc.

The 'concern for the dignity of sentient beings' is why most player's Paladins will always fall. They always have to do something stupid like put a goblins head on a pike, or drag a dragon though town.

---

If I could change one thing in the alignment system it would be the word 'Evil' into 'Bad' in most cases. The opposite of a good-guy is a bad-guy, not an evil-guy. Stealing isn't evil, it's not-good or bad. Lying isn't evil, it's not-good or bad.
Evil is the vivisection of person. Hitting one for no reason isn't, its bad.
There is evil out there, it just shouldn't be confused with bad.

Liberty's Edge

The big thing for the Evil-Good axis in the RAW is how you treat innocent people. Nothing quite not-Good in hurting the guilty (even badly). Only the small caveat about respect for the dignity of life would apply.

So, if he only does this to horrible people, it is a little evil compensated by many Good actions (as long as he does these Good actions selflessly and not to avoid becoming Evil of course).

However, if he does this to innocent people, or to people who might be innocent, then it becomes Evil.

That said, what matters is the GM's take on the alignments. Which just might be different from mine, or yours, or that of the other player. So better check with him ;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
toxicpie wrote:

The creator of the NPC says he only commits these horrible acts because he's trying to help people, and the people he kills are incredibly rich and greedy.

Please help settle this! :D

By attempting to explain away his atrocities, this businessman is refusing to take responsibility for his actions. By claiming that the victims of his crimes were at fault, essentially, for existing, he's placed the onus of responsibility outside of his own hands and claimed that he's only doing what he can.

Except that's a lie.

There are ways of helping people that don't include torturing other people. There are rich people who are not monsters. There are greedy people who are not monsters. These attributes within a person are not crimes, especially not crimes worthy of such severe punishment. Seeking justification for his actions means that he already understands that his actions do not justify themselves, and he simply refuses to admit it. This makes him a coward as well as a liar and brute. He's insufficiently devoted to his actions to claim ownership of them. He is bound by no code of conduct, not even a self-imposed one. He is not devoted to the destruction of society. He commits atrocities not out of a sense of zeal or exhilaration, but out of a sense of expediency.

Decidedly Neutral Evil.

Edit: Poor proofreading. It's early and I haven't had my coffee yet.

Silver Crusade

Neurophage wrote:
toxicpie wrote:

The creator of the NPC says he only commits these horrible acts because he's trying to help people, and the people he kills are incredibly rich and greedy.

Please help settle this! :D

By attempting to explain away his atrocities, this businessman is refusing to take responsibility for his actions. By claiming that the victims of his crimes were at fault, essentially, for existing, he's placed the onus of responsibility outside of his own hands and claimed that he's only doing what he can.

Except that's a lie.

There are ways of helping people that don't include torturing other people. There are rich people who are not monsters. There are greedy people who are not monsters. These attributes within a person are not crimes, especially not crimes worthy of such severe punishment. Seeking justification for his actions means that he already understands that his actions do not justify themselves, and he simply refuses to admit it. This makes him a coward as well as a liar and brute. He's insufficiently devoted to his actions to claim ownership of them. He is bound by no code of conduct, not even a self-imposed one. He is not devoted to the destruction of society. He commits atrocities not out of a sense of zeal or exhilaration, but out of a sense of expediency.

Decidedly Neutral Evil.

Edit: Poor proofreading. It's early and I haven't had my coffee yet.

It's called being a Sociopath.


Can an evil person do good things and still be evil?

Silver Crusade

toxicpie wrote:

Each player is helping the GM to make NPCs, and one of them has made the head of the Thieves' Guild and insists that he is good. This man steals from the rich to give (very genorously) to the poor in the slums the king doesn't help. However he is also an incredibly wealthy businessman with contracts and deals in every aspect of the city. And if anyone double-crosses him or tries to default on their debts, he has increasingly horrifying ways of torture to punish them. I, er, won't go into details.

I say that his brutality to people he cannot forgive makes him evil, but I sort of get stuck with the argument because he undeniably makes life better for the thousands in abject poverty. The creator of the NPC says he only commits these horrible acts because he's trying to help people, and the people he kills are incredibly rich and greedy.

Please help settle this! :D

Everyone is going to have their opinion on this.

I guess your first question is this: Do the ends justify the means? If your answer is no...

I would think Neutral Evil. Evil: The is his stealing by running the thieve's guild, and then Evil there is his use of torture.

The giving to the poor may simply be his way to assuage his conscience, and his way to justify what he is doing.....but then again, it sounds like this character doesn't feel bad for what he is doing at all and believes himself to be good.

If your answer is yes, the the ends do justifying the means, then I would put him at neutral. with his bad balancing out the good.

Just my opinion.

To answer Cardinal Chunder's question: can evil people do good things and still remain evil?

This depends on how you view and interpret Alignment. Does your every action thought and intention weigh into your alignment? And are you unable to vary from this narrow definition?

or do you interpret Alignment as a characters general tendencies and outlook on life? then if that is the case, then yes an evil person can do good and still remain evil.

In my opinion, a character can step out of their alignment and commit an act that is "out of character" and still keep their alignment, However if their repeated actions and attitudes are "out of alignment" then perhaps the character has been classified in the wrong alignment and a shift of alignment is required.


I'm playing Devil's Advocate with that question but I am intrigued. I have seen many threads postulating that a PC should be forced to change to an evil alignment because of a single act.

The defence I would guess is "the end justifies the means". They can be (small good) good as long as the outcome is (big) evil. However the reverse doesn't hold true, so it seems. GMs jump up and down on a PC for a (small) evil even if the outcome is a (big) good.

As far as my games are concerned Alignment is an Artificial Game Construct to enable certain magical effects to interact with the world. Its a tool to aid in roleplaying and helping to define your PC outlook on the world.

It isn't there to try and catch players out or straight-jacket them.


I would say single acts don't change alignment unless they're very extreme examples. If a non-evil character kidnaps a baby and eats it because they just woke up that morning and decided they were hungry for baby, that character is shifting to evil. By the same token, I'd probably shift an evil character who willingly sacrificed his life or something of similar value for purely altruistic reasons.

However, I'd say that in general one-time actions are not going to change one's alignment. If the party roughs up that one lackey of the big bad for absolutely critical information, it's not an alignment shift on its own. The danger that sort of activity represents for good PCs is that a lot of big bads started off as good guys who were making a one-time-only exception to the normal rules because their cause was that important. Then next thing you, you're sitting in your palace, consolidating a criminal empire and pondering how you'll torture any who dare defy you.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Splendor wrote:

Single actions don't change your alignment, repeated consistent actions do.

Does torturing a person to find the cure to save a town make you evil? How about letting a town of 1000 people die because instead of torturing the information out of someone you just killed him, is that evil?

Yes. To all of them. A truly Good person would find a way to get the information without torture (which tends not to work anyway). None are enough to make you Evil, though.

Splendor wrote:
You want to torture someone, go ahead, no alignment change. You want to torture people for practice or because you like doing it? Now you're evil.

If you're only doing it because you want to, I think you're already Evil. Feel you have to, now...maybe not so much.

Splendor wrote:
Here a question - Is bursting into someone home and killing them evil? What if that someone was a goblin? a troll? a ghoul?

It certainly is if unprovoked (well, probably not the Ghoul, undead are metaphysically bad, as a rule). Very few adventures that involve this don't involve the goblins or trolls or whatever doing some provocation, though.

Splendor wrote:
I hate hearing that this act or that act makes you evil. Good people will commit evil acts if needed. If your kids were kidnapped and torturing someone would set them free, you'd do it.

Side note, to be clear: Torture is an ineffective means of extracting useful information. If the game is following the rules of the real world this would not work. I agree with your moral assessment in a world where it does, though.

Splendor wrote:

Consistent actions make your alignment, not individual acts.

A good person can torture and not become evil.

This is, generally speaking, true...but we're talking about a guy who tortures people as a matter of policy when they don't pay him the money they owe. That's...a pretty Evil pattern of behavior. It's potentially balnced by Good acts, but not enough to make him Good.

Splendor wrote:
Play with bronze or middle-age moral outlooks, not current ones.

I disagree with this statement deeply and profoundly. However, I think goiung into that in detail would be a bit off-topic.

Splendor wrote:

As for casting evil spell:

Casting evil spells make you evil? Really? Protection from evil is a good spell, does that make me good?

No, but it's a Good act. Like being nice to somebody, just because. Or treating your spouse well. Ie: It's a Good act, but not enough to make up for otherwise being Evil.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Can an evil person do good things and still be evil?

Absolutely. Doctor Doom is a perfect example. I'm sure even the Kingpin gives money away to charities. But they are both still considerably evil because of their basic approach in life.

It's not the individual acts that define the person, it is the totality of their gestalt.


In just about every alignment discussion I've seen in my admittedly short time here on these boards, there's always at least one or two people who come out of the woodwork and shout to the rooftops how much they hate the alignment system and claim that it's useless for determining someone's morality. There are real arguments for and against the system as a whole but what always gets me is that they use the worst examples possible. It's like they can't think of an actual moral gray area so they try to shoehorn in their arguments into discussions of things that are not moral gray areas.

Torture is not a moral gray area when it's used purely to punish people you don't like. It's especially bad when "people you don't like" means people who can't pay back a debt. How is this acceptable for a Good character. How does this "show concern for the dignity of sentient beings?" How does it "revere life?"

Dr. Doom can at least say he's risen the quality of life permanently in Latveria. He probably has actually saved more lives than he's taken (in Latervia and no where else.) He cares that the people of Latveria are objectively better off under his rule than they are when they're not. And the comics have shown this to be true. The NPC the OP mentioned has not.

The person mentioned in the thread is a mobster who pretends to be more moral than he really is. He really has to answer the question of why he can't donate to the poor without torturing people. People like to phrase alignment arguments in extreme circumstances. Would you torture someone for information if there was no other way? There is definitely another way to enforce debt collection than torture!


lawful evil, hands down, and one of my favorite alignments

you have to seperate two things, what the person actually is and the persons own personal perception. the character described here is the most awsome kind of villian, the one that is arguably justified. He honestly percieves himself as doing the right thing but despite this delusion he is in fact lawful evil.

i give you an example. The holy crusaders of catholicism did horribly evil things during their crusades but perceived themselves as being a force of Good for the world.

doing some good things doesnt make you good, the absolute exclusion of doing evil things makes you good thus engaging in some good and some evil behaviors makes you evil mechanically or at best Chaotic neutral.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
toxicpie wrote:

Each player is helping the GM to make NPCs, and one of them has made the head of the Thieves' Guild and insists that he is good. This man steals from the rich to give (very genorously) to the poor in the slums the king doesn't help. However he is also an incredibly wealthy businessman with contracts and deals in every aspect of the city. And if anyone double-crosses him or tries to default on their debts, he has increasingly horrifying ways of torture to punish them. I, er, won't go into details.

I say that his brutality to people he cannot forgive makes him evil, but I sort of get stuck with the argument because he undeniably makes life better for the thousands in abject poverty. The creator of the NPC says he only commits these horrible acts because he's trying to help people, and the people he kills are incredibly rich and greedy.

Please help settle this! :D

So what response has he made (if any) of the posts given already?

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Can a good person do evil things and still be good? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.