I play a chaotic neutral Human thief who is obsessed with money. He has one goal, to fill a tub with gold coins and bathe in it. He wants a mansion, respect, and most importanly, gold! There is a local thieve's guild in a semi-wealthy city that he wants to take over. My thief plans to take over this guild by acting as a mystical urban legend named "The Severed Hand" who kills the bullies and baddasses of the slums as well as pulling a Robin Hood and stealing from the rich and giving to the poor (and himself). He plans to do this so he can overhtrow the guild and be a theif guild leader.
My question of ethics is that would killing all the bad guys in the slums a good act? He is doing it to get power and money but he is also ridding the world of injustice, and helping the poor. Is that a good act, a neutral one, or possibly evil because he lies to the commoners. Once he gets the power he will try to keep the people happy so he can overthrow the government in the city, then other cities, then the country; so he can get a pool filled with gold in a rich mansion, and be the wealthiest man ever. Thanks for your input. :)
I play a chaotic neutral Human thief who is obsessed with money. He has one goal, to fill a tub with gold coins and bathe in it. He wants a mansion, respect, and most importanly, gold! There is a local thieve's guild in a semi-wealthy city that he wants to take over. My thief plans to take over this guild by acting as a mystical urban legend named "The Severed Hand" who kills the bullies and baddasses of the slums as well as pulling a Robin Hood and stealing from the rich and giving to the poor (and himself). He plans to do this so he can overhtrow the guild and be a theif guild leader.
My question of ethics is that would killing all the bad guys in the slums a good act? He is doing it to get power and money but he is also ridding the world of injustice, and helping the poor. Is that a good act, a neutral one, or possibly evil because he lies to the commoners. Once he gets the power he will try to keep the people happy so he can overthrow the government in the city, then other cities, then the country; so he can get a pool filled with gold in a rich mansion, and be the wealthiest man ever. Thanks for your input. :)
If primary goal is be rich/take over a guild than NE. Now the methods you do to enact that goal might keep you Neutral (giving to poor), but selfishness isn't good. Mostly neutral.
The definition of CN from the srd it may add some insight:
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as he is to cross it.
Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal.
Imo this embodies your character's alignment very well he is trying to overthrow an organization for his own purposes. Helping the poor is a way to gain their support i.e. you are exchanging gold for respect, admiration and power. You are not giving out money from the goodness of your heart, but rather as a means to further your own plans.
You can't kill a baby for a good cause and be good, but you can SAVE a baby for a bad cause and be evil.
Good deeds for your own benefit= neutral. Screw the rules= chaotic. I think you're doing it right.
I'm with Sam on this one. Classic Chaotic Neutral.
He's trying to convince himself he does it for good, but in the end he isn't willing to make personal sacrifices to help the poor. How can a truly good person justify sitting on a pile of good when there are still poor, hungry, miserable people in the slums.
More money more problems, but more money solves.
Honestly, if yo're playing CN, don't concern yourself with Good or Evil.
Thanks it helps a lot I'll probably confer with the GM about it, but I'm sure he'll think it will fit.
What?
I don't even know what that has to do with anything.
"He wants a mansion, respect, and most importanly, gold! There is a local thieve's guild in a semi-wealthy city that he wants to take over."
A CN character would have 0 desire to do this.
They could care less about mansions and respect, and joining 'the establishment' - especially as a leader - is about as far from CN as you are going to get.
Besides, he'd get whacked pretty quick in any serious Thieves Guild - legend or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Typhoid Mary had been discovered to be a baby, what would bave been a good way to handle the situation?
-With gloves.
|
I play a chaotic neutral Human thief who is obsessed with money. He has one goal, to fill a tub with gold coins and bathe in it. He wants a mansion, respect, and most importanly, gold! There is a local thieve's guild in a semi-wealthy city that he wants to take over. My thief plans to take over this guild by acting as a mystical urban legend named "The Severed Hand" who kills the bullies and baddasses of the slums as well as pulling a Robin Hood and stealing from the rich and giving to the poor (and himself). He plans to do this so he can overhtrow the guild and be a theif guild leader.
My question of ethics is that would killing all the bad guys in the slums a good act? He is doing it to get power and money but he is also ridding the world of injustice, and helping the poor. Is that a good act, a neutral one, or possibly evil because he lies to the commoners. Once he gets the power he will try to keep the people happy so he can overthrow the government in the city, then other cities, then the country; so he can get a pool filled with gold in a rich mansion, and be the wealthiest man ever. Thanks for your input. :)
Actually, he asked if it was ethical, not moral. Morality would imply you would look at the alignment of the character in question, in which case the answer is likely no. Ethics would imply you look at the social values and norm of the city this took place in, which if it was Riddleport or possibly parts of Korvosa, then yes it could be viewed as ethical. This is especially true if you were to view it from the perspective of the Thieves Guild, which is likely to operate much like one of the River Freedoms, You have what you hold.
So my take is that it could be ethical, but likely not very moral. It does not however necessarily violate his alignment, depending on exactly how he goes about implementing his plan and what his specific characters personal code is. Chaotic neutral should not mean "do whatever I feel like", but rather "follow my own personal code over laws and societal norms". Note that this second could also apply to CG or CE, it just depends on where that character draws his boundaries.
It was said by another poster that taking the life of a baby is always evil. I was attempting to point out that such an absolute isn't actually an absolute.
I didn't say it was always evil. I just said you couldn't kill it *for a cause* and be good. IE, if it advances your cause to deliberately kill a baby you're going to wind up neutral at best.
I really wouldn't consider its own suffering / life expectancy a cause, and the typhoid mary reference threw me... the entire reason she was remarkable is that she had NO symptoms herself but was still infectious... ie, the disease itself didn't directly impact her life at all.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see I didn't make my point clear. I'll try again. There are situations in which death is preferable to life. One reason is a medical condition which makes life unbelievably painful. Another such example is a life which is horribly cut off from the world (eg. total paralysis) It was said by another poster that taking the life of a baby is always evil. I was attempting to point out that such an absolute isn't actually an absolute.If Typhoid Mary had been a baby it wouldn't have been a problem as very few babies take up the profession of cook. Mary's problem was that she broke her promise to abandon the cooking profession. Otherwise with certain precautions she could have prevented herself from infecting anyone.If Typhoid Mary had been discovered to be a baby, what would bave been a good way to handle the situation? I can't think of anything that wouldn't have lowered her quality of life to the point where taking her life would be merciful.You can't kill a baby for a good cause and be good, but you can SAVE a baby for a bad cause and be evil.
Good deeds for your own benefit= neutral. Screw the rules= chaotic. I think you're doing it right.
You are using opinions as facts. Please do not confuse the two.
Would'nt killing dozens of people purely to advance yourself, slake your own greed and gain you power be evil?
Remember Chaotic Neutral is an aligment SEPERATE from Chaotic Evil and hence you should NOT be doing what Chaotic Evil will do to advance itself. Otherwise you would BE chaotic evil.
Chaotic Neutral is NOT the 'do anything you want' alignment. It is the 'personal freedom without becoming a butcher' alignment. There ARE things that even Neutrals don't do on the good evil axis. They won't go out of their way to help others but they generally do not go around killing dozens of people for personal profit either.
Just as CN is not reigned in by the tenets of Good, and this is the important part so many people like to ignore, they also avoid sinking into the LACK of morality of evil. They do have SOME respect for life and others liberty. It is just that if it comes down to OTHERS life and liberty or their own with no other options, they choose themselves.
Would'nt killing dozens of people purely to advance yourself, slake your own greed and gain you power be evil?
-If so, then most adventuring parties are evil. If you confine your bloodlust to people who have it comming anyway (murderers, people trying to kill you for your money) you can probably pull neutral.
|
Actually, he asked if it was ethical, not moral.
Ethics is the application of moral principles. Anything that is ethical is moral, anything that is moral is ethical. While there is a difference between morals and ethics, that difference is trivial and irrelevant when the question is presented like this. In this case asking if it is ethical is the same as asking if it moral.
To the OP: This plan is not ethical -- the world would descend into chaos and anarchy if everyone did what you're proposing, and one of the ways we know a thing is ethical is that its what everyone would do in a world where everyone acted ethically -- and a character who behaved like this would be at best neutral evil, and probably chaotic evil.
|
|
Actually, he asked if it was ethical, not moral.Ethics is the application of moral principles. Anything that is ethical is moral, anything that is moral is ethical. While there is a difference between morals and ethics, that difference is trivial and irrelevant when the question is presented like this. In this case asking if it is ethical is the same as asking if it moral.
To the OP: This plan is not ethical -- the world would descend into chaos and anarchy if everyone did what you're proposing, and one of the ways we know a thing is ethical is that its what everyone would do in a world where everyone acted ethically -- and a character who behaved like this would be at best neutral evil, and probably chaotic evil.
You cant make statements like this without qualifiers...otherwise though lying is considered immoral, there would be no such thing as a white lie, and as parents we would be immoral for lying to our children about Santa Claus. Ethically our society makes allowances for lying to prevent causing a greater emotional hurt to others, or to allow our children to believe in magic while they are young and formative.
And there is always context in ethics. His plan may be ethical in the context of how Thieve's guilds (or gangs) do business, just not the same morals or ethics our LG paladins and clerics use, or the NG ethics of the shopkeepers. Or in terms of his own code of ethics and morals.
It really has to be defined whose ethics and morals we are talking about. Thats why I said, it depends on what the city is like he is planning this venture.
Now in PF/DnD we have the absolutes of alignments, which means you also have to assess his actions in terms of alignment, during which I would say that he is LE or NE. If gaining power and gold is his only motivations for the takeover, probably NE in the end. If he wants for example, to create stability for future illegal dealings and a more structured organized blackmarket type environment, LE probably applies, especially since he is premeditating the entire venture.
I suspect the philosophical side of the discussion ventures far from where the OP wanted this to be addressed at though.. which is likely just from the alignment perspective :)
IMHO:
If having your primary motivation is wealth for yourself above all else isn't evil, I don't know what (semi-realistic, non-cartoon-villian) evil would even look like.
Chaotic Neutral act.
Good: rid the city of thieves -> good!
Evil: . . . only to be plagued by another group of thieves. . . bad.
(Good/Evil Axis: Neutral)
Law: Pretty much nothing lawful going on here. . .
Chaos: Destruction of status quo -> chaotic
(Law/Chaos Axis: Chaotic)
So end result: Chaotic Neutral. . .
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You cant make statements like this without qualifiers...otherwise though lying is considered immoral, there would be no such thing as a white lie, and as parents we would be immoral for lying to our children about Santa Claus. Ethically our society makes allowances for lying to prevent causing a greater emotional hurt to others, or to allow our children to believe in magic while they are young and formative.
I'm sorry, I don't follow your argument. White lies and telling your children about Santa Claus are not ethical. We do many things that are not ethical, mostly because we can't be ethical all the time, and its easier to just let somethings slide than get into fights over them.
And there is always context in ethics. His plan may be ethical in the context of how Thieve's guilds (or gangs) do business, just not the same morals or ethics our LG paladins and clerics use, or the NG ethics of the shopkeepers. Or in terms of his own code of ethics and morals.
I'm not sure what you mean by "there is always context in ethics." We discuss ethics in the abstract all the time. Ethicists, those who professional consider the concept of ethics, always work in terms of hypotheticals, which are non-contextual.
We apply ethics to contexts, and that is the fundamental difference between ethics and morals -- morals are the rules themselves, ethics are the rules applied to specific contexts. But ethics themselves are universal.
So if the actions of the paladin and the shopkeeper are ethical, they are ethical in the same context. The answer to the question "What is the ethical thing for a shopkeeper to do?" is going to be different than the answer to the question "What is the ethical thing for a paladin to do?" but we'll use the same reasoning and the same moral principles to arrive at the answer to both.
It really has to be defined whose ethics and morals we are talking about. Thats why I said, it depends on what the city is like he is planning this venture.
Ethics don't belong to anyone. Ethics are like mathematics. You can't say that "1+1=2" is right for some people and wrong for other people. "1+1=2" is right, and if you have a different answer, you're just wrong.
If we were going to assess the alignment of the character in the OP's example by the actions of the character, he would be chaotic evil.
Killing all of the thieves in the city is not good, because killing people is not good. Any moral system that suggests it is ever good to kill someone is deeply flawed.
Sometimes killing another person is justified. Generally it is justified by the intent of the action. Ex: A soldier who kills another soldier in defense of his countrymen and homeland is considered justified, because his intent is not to kill the enemy soldier, but to defend his fellow countrymen -- we recognize that as a good intent. That doesn't make killing the enemy soldier good, only justified.
If the OP wanted to kill all of the thieves in order to make the city safe for ordinary citizens, we might consider that justified, but thankfully we don't have to consider that possibility because the OP has told us his motivation: To trick people into thinking he is this urban legend, The Severed Hand, as part of a larger scheme to get fabulously wealthy. So the intent of the OP is very clear. He wants to kill people to increase his wealth to the maximum extent possible.
We know this is not a good motivation, because if everyone acted this way the world would cease to function in any coherent sense. If we all killed people in pursuit of wealth, we'd all be dead. If we were all dead, there would be no wealth. That's completely incoherent.
In fact, because we know that result of everyone acting this way would be an incoherent world (one in which we are all killing each other to steal the wealth that none of us is creating because we're all too busy killing each other!), we know this is an evil intention.
|
|
I think there is confusion here.
To a cannibalistic society, eating people is ethical. To a Judeo-christian society, it is not. Similarly, if you belong to a pacificistic society killing, even in war is not ethical. By this I mean normative ethics, those formed by the society or organization we are addressing.
To a city that worships Zon-Kuthon, the normative ethics might be very different than those in a LG city. The original poster I think confused ethics and morality and alignment.
Really I probably went offtopic separating the two from the alignment system, however, ethics and morality are not the same thing. However assuming we are using alignments as a basis in PF, in particular a NG/CG/LG society, the tendency is to use this as the viewpoint from which to make ethical or moral judgments. This is the tendency because that is what GMs tend to use to make these judgments, and most frankly don't care whether something is morally or ethically wrong, they care if they think it applies to your alignment.
There, topic back on track! :)
|
|
Gail, ethics aren't anything like mathematics. Ethics is a form of philosophical debate about morality, and as such, lacks any empirically correct or incorrect answers: It only possesses answers which are stronger or weaker arguments than others, and therefore either more or less supportable.
If I have one apple and you have one apple and we both give Erik Mona our apples, then Erik Mona has two apples. Correct? Prove it empirically. Since ownership is a concept and not a physical state of matter, you can never prove through observation that 1+1=2. Which is why ethics is like mathematics. Like mathematics, ethics are only knowable through reason, not through observation.
The claim that any moral system which suggests killing is ever a good action is deeply flawed is at best ignorant, at worst close minded.
Show me any theory of morality that suggests killing people is good, and I'll show you the flaw in that theory. There are no moral theories that
Every moral system begins with fundamental truths and morality grows from there.
Yes, that's correct. Mathematics is the same way.
The only systems which exist where "to kill is wrong" is considered a fundamental truth have, in the past two thousand or more years, consistently failed to be able to address the Euthyphro dilemma.
That's a complete false statement. The Euthyphro dilemma only applies to theistic theories of morality. Modern moral reasoning is completely secular, and requires no references to God. The Euthyphro dilemma ( is
For any other moral system, the proof that killing is wrong must be reached through reasoned argument, and every system where those arguments have been codified has been forced to admit that there are strong arguments that killing is not merely morally acceptable, but indeed morally obligated in specific circumstances in order to keep in line with their fundamental guiding principles.
That is also not true.
Further, your argument is untenable: you use a stated intention of selfishness to show that the end result of everyone adopting this rule and acting with this intention would be destruction (a conclusion which you fail to adequately support, and which multiple ethicists have proven with far stronger arguments than your own is inaccurate), which you label as incoherent and therefore evil.
Wait, what? So you're saying a world where everyone killed everyone else would is a feasible world? Because if everyone actually did kill everyone else, then there would no one, and thus no world. Name one ethicist who claims that a world where everyone literally kills everyone else is feasible.
C'mon man, it's the definition of self-evident.
One could as easily say that a child is evil for being incoherent in telling the police what happened as relates to a crime. Incoherency is not a hallmark of evil (nor of good), but it is a hallmark of a chaotic mindset.
You have misunderstood what incoherence means in this context. It means a logically impossible scenario. It doesn't mean not making sense because you are a child.
Ergo, the OP is correct to label the actions of his character in accordance with a Chaotic Neutral alignment: he wants what he wants and damn the consequences if everyone else wants it, or follows his example. As you accurately pointed out, he is not motivated by a desire to do good, but equally, there is no motivation to cause harm in his actions:...
He intends to kill a bunch of thieves and to steal a bunch of money. That is very much a motivation to cause harm. How can you possibly say that he has no intention to cause harm when his intention is to kill a bunch of people?
You can't possibly believe that there is a moral theory that actually justifies a thief killing a bunch of other thieves.
And what about his plan to steal from the rich? How is that not a motivation not to cause harm? The rich will be harmed by his thieving! I'm a rabid leftie socialist and even I don't think you can justify theft from the rich.
|
|
I think there is confusion here.
To a cannibalistic society, eating people is ethical. To a Judeo-christian society, it is not. Similarly, if you belong to a pacificistic society killing, even in war is not ethical. By this I mean normative ethics, those formed by the society or organization we are addressing.
Ethics are independent of society. You're confusing ethics with laws, taboos and cultural values. For example, in some parts of Central Asia, it is legal and culturally acceptable to beat your wife for displaying signs of autonomy. But ethically it is wrong, regardless of law and culture.
Likewise, if you were Indian you might violate local taboos by helping an elderly person in the pariah caste back to their feet after they fell, but it would still be the ethical thing to do in that situation.
To a city that worships Zon-Kuthon, the normative ethics might be very different than those in a LG city. The original poster I think confused ethics and morality and alignment.
Normative values, not normative ethics. There's no such thing as normative ethics.
Normative values, not normative ethics. There's no such thing as normative ethics.
Yeah, there is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics"it examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions"
"normative ethics is concerned with whether it is correct to hold such a belief"
|
|
Evidently quite a few ethicists would disagree with you...
Edit: ninja'ed LOL.
However ethics and morality (two different things) in the real world are not a single viewpoint arrived at by adopting a Judeo-Christian value system and applying it to everyone and everything. You could perhaps argue that that this IS the case in PF/DnD given that the basis for the alignment system tends to follow these guidelines.
Ergo, the OP is correct to label the actions of his character in accordance with a Chaotic Neutral alignment: he wants what he wants and damn the consequences if everyone else wants it, or follows his example.
If you think "I want what I want and I don't care what the consequences to anyone else are" is neutral, I'd like to know what you think evil is.
Seriously: if selfishness taken to a sociopathic extreme isn't evil enough to qualify as evil, I honestly cannot even imagine what a non-cartoonish evil character would look like.
(Aside #1: My college ethics professor was clear that he, at least, believed and could make a good argument for fairly objective right and wrong.
Aside #2: I think killing can be a good and not merely justified act, even if it usually isn't.)
Why does this remind me of the sorcerous in Dorkness Rising?
Like mathematics, ethics are only knowable through reason, not through observation.
-Ethics aren't derivable from reason. People can put layers of reason over the ethics they want, it won't change what's at the core one way or another. Ethics are an ought, its not possible to answer them with is.
-math IS derivable from observation. If you want to test multiplication or addition you can grab apples and do so.
|
|
Normative values, not normative ethics. There's no such thing as normative ethics.Yeah, there is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics"it examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions"
"normative ethics is concerned with whether it is correct to hold such a belief"
I was unaware of that use of the term.
Regardless, the phrase as redcelt used it is incorrect. He meant normative values -- the values that one would expect a person of a city that worshiped Zon-Kuthon to hold.
|
Chaotic Neutral act.
Good: rid the city of thieves -> good!
Evil: . . . only to be plagued by another group of thieves. . . bad.(Good/Evil Axis: Neutral)
Law: Pretty much nothing lawful going on here. . .
Chaos: Destruction of status quo -> chaotic(Law/Chaos Axis: Chaotic)
So end result: Chaotic Neutral. . .
This isn't Fallout. Being neutral does not mean the bipolar behaviour of shooting someone in the face, then giving the thirsty guy some water.
He's out for money and power, and he's willing to kill to get it. He's evil. He can make himself feel better by giving to the poor and making someone's life better, but he's still evil.
He's out for money and power, and he's willing to kill to get it. He's evil. He can make himself feel better by giving to the poor and making someone's life better, but he's still evil.
____
My thief plans to take over this guild by acting as a mystical urban legend named "The Severed Hand" who kills the bullies and baddasses of the slums____
Since he's not killing innocent people i think that might be enoughto keep him out of the evil territory.
I want a treasure bath and i'm willing to kill scum to get it is better than i want a treasure bath and i'm willing to kill anyone to get it.
He is killing redeemable scum though and not for reasons of making things better but for personal gain.
|
|
Like mathematics, ethics are only knowable through reason, not through observation.-Ethics aren't derivable from reason. People can put layers of reason over the ethics they want, it won't change what's at the core one way or another. Ethics are an ought, its not possible to answer them with is.
I haven't seen any evidence that you actually know what reason is, Norse. I'm not even sure how to make an argument against a claim like this. You seem to be spouting gibberish.
What are "layers of reason?" What does that phrase actually mean?
-math IS derivable from observation. If you want to test multiplication or addition you can grab apples and do so.
No, it's not. You can't observe math. I just demonstrated why you can't demonstrate mathematics with apples. You seem to have completely ignored that.
You can only add an apple to another apple by transferring ownership of the apples between multiple owners, which is a change in the conceptual relationship between the apples, but the conceptual relationship between the apples is not observable. There is no observable change in the apples.
It can only be known through reason.
|
|
Since he's not killing innocent people i think that might be enoughto keep him out of the evil territory.
I want a treasure bath and i'm willing to kill scum to get it is better than i want a treasure bath and i'm willing to kill anyone to get it.
So a serial killer who kills for the pleasure of watching another person scream in agony is not an bad person if they only kill other bad people?
And remind us all again how it is that we determine who is innocent and who isn't? I seem to recall you claiming that it was a "gray area," and that we couldn't be certain who was innocent and who was not.
That's a real problem, Norse. A really huge problem.
With no usable mechanism to determine the innocent (and thus life deserving) from the guilty (and thus good to kill), we are left with people being good for killing anyone they consider to be guilty.
I haven't seen any evidence that you actually know what reason is, Norse. I'm not even sure how to make an argument against a claim like this.
Its pretty clear how to prove me wrong here. Reason your way to morality.
You seem to be spouting gibberish.
When i start sprouting gibberish your camel freely oxidated malted.
What are "layers of reason?" What does that phrase actually mean?
What i mean is that underneath every verbose and sophisticated philosophical argument for an idea there is an 8 year old shouting "is too!" at the top of his lungs. The rest is just window dressing.
You can only add an apple to another apple by transferring ownership of the apples between multiple owners, which is a change in the conceptual relationship between the apples, but the conceptual relationship between the apples is not observable. There is no observable change in the apples.
Or you can just put three groups of three apples in a basket and count them to get 9. That's pretty observable.
Hey Norse, serious question:
A man rapes and kills a woman he doesn't know in a dark alleyway.
The woman is professional assassin who kills people for money.
Is the rapist a good man?
Following the logic of your argument, he is.
No, for two reasons.
1) motive matters and without knowing she's an assassin he has no justifiable motive or even excusable motive for killing her.
2) The rape is completely unnecessary.
My logic confuses you. When you try to read it you wind up with underwear gnome economics. You're going to continue making those misunderstandings as long as you persist in looking for errors in my moral system as if contradictions with your moral system were an internal contradiction.
One of the most common roads to evil is that of self-delusion. The character is throughly unambigously evil. A murderer is still a murderer even if his choice of targets are marginally more acceptable.
Well, how many groups of people have to come off the list before they move back to neutral? Even good adventurers tend to wrack up quite a body count, and stay good by limiting it to people that deserve it.
Yes however a couple of points norse
1 Most good adventurers kill to keep the evil things from killing/raping/pillaging
2 Good PCs tend to also spend time/money doing good acts.
The OP is basicly wanting to kill his opposition and hoarde plenty of money. Giving some back to the poor is a good start but he is still far from getting his alignment meter pushed back over into the neutral zone.
Yes however a couple of points norse
1 Most good adventurers kill to keep the evil things from killing/raping/pillaging
-Right. So what this character seems to lack in order to be good is the proper motive. Absent that proper motive does he drop down to evil or to neutral?
I would do anything for love... but i won't do that... or that.. or that.. or that.... when the list of things you WONT do for cash gets long enough you creep back up into neutral.
2 Good PCs tend to also spend time/money doing good acts.
There's a lot of things a paladin might want to atone for. Killing the bad guys isn't one of them.
1 If i were his DM yes.
2 I can see the paladin asking forgivness not for killing evil doers but for taking a life. He isn't saying i shouldn't have killed that guy he is saying i wish i could have taught him how to be good, Since i can't i shall help the church reach out to more people so that less of them turn to evil as a means of existence.
I'll call my congress person about tax free status Norse. I think we found a religion we can all get behind.