Really it comes down to this - the player having stated his reasons for killing the unconscious thugs now so that they're clear, are they within the purview of Chaotic Neutral, or is this a step toward evil?
I'm going with yes, it's within CN, but straying off-center a bit due to the fact they felt the need to hide it from the rest of the group and that it was done in cold blood rather than in the heat of combat. Not off-center enough to make any real difference, though.
It's important to remember though, someone can perform an evil act and still see no real change on their alignment track due to so many other actions they're also performing balancing it all out. Trends are far more important than individual actions (well, short of setting fire to the local orphanage.)
Well, I have already stated my opinion that the murders were clearly evil, but not necessarily enough to warrant an alignment shift.... yet.
I think I have also demonstrated that it is difficult to reconcile them as "chaotic."
There is also the fundamental aspect of the "neutral" alignment as well. I have seen nothing at all from the rogue player to indicate any attempt to explain how this action pursues any balance between evil and good from his own alignment perspective. So imho the actions are problematical along BOTH of the character's avowed alignment axes.
I am getting sick and tired of "chaotic screw the party" lately. I've had to explain to many a player that this is not second edition where chaotic neutral is the alignment of madmen and lunatics. You do not bet half your gold on random things etc. Last time I played neutral that leaned evil I was lawful and went out of my way to do good things just so I could get away with evil when the camera wasn't on me (oddly enough I was voted the leader in a party full of paladinesque type characters. Did not turn out so well when I wanted to hawk a cursed flute to "some poor hapless fool.") Going out of your way to kill several npc's that cannot fight back is in fact evil and I've had to tell my players this at times and usually they back off. Maybe give him 3 strikes and he out (make him evil, make him know it by having known paladins in town start avoiding him and giving him the stink-eye, is at certain penalties in temples that have had hallow cast on them etc.)
So the character killed multiple helpless individuals and later lied about it, presumably not having any kind of remorse. That is just textbook evil.
A neutral character of any kind should have some respect for life and if not that at least for his companions not to do this behind their backs.
It was not an impulsive but very deliberately planned, evil action, casting doubts on his chaotic nature.
I'd change the character to Neutral Evil if I don't see redeeming personality traits the way he plays the character.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I've noticed a lot is that people think your alignment dictates what actions a character can and cannot take. Rarely do I see individuals aware that your alignment is merely representative of the choices a character has made. It should never be the driving force behind decisions made. ... Well, unless you play PFS. Slipping evil there gets you removed from play unless you seek an atonement. Can't afford one? Character is considered dead. Sadly, it seems more and more GMs in home games try to pidgeonhole their parties into being good aligned. If it isn't one of them doing it, it's the one guy that decides to plop is paladin in a party full of chaotic neutrals. ... After which the GM will immediately side with them. Then to top that off, you've got everyone and their mother automatically assuming your character is evil the second you write chaotic neutral on a sheet. Most chaotic neutral characters do NOT, and I repeat do NOT, go far enough over the line to constitute being evil unless the GM is pretty rough. Having a minority act one way shouldn't stain the majority but quite clearly has.
To Annoying Orange: Being chaotic does not automatically imply that you are always impulsive. In fact, quite a number of chaotic characters (PCs as well as NPCs from official written materials hailing from all over) are prone to far reaching, ridiculously complex plans that might take decades to come to fruition.
One thing I've noticed a lot is that people think your alignment dictates what actions a character can and cannot take. Rarely do I see individuals aware that your alignment is merely representative of the choices a character has made. It should never be the driving force behind decisions made. ... Well, unless you play PFS. Slipping evil there gets you removed from play unless you seek an atonement. Can't afford one? Character is considered dead. Sadly, it seems more and more GMs in home games try to pidgeonhole their parties into being good aligned. If it isn't one of them doing it, it's the one guy that decides to plop is paladin in a party full of chaotic neutrals. ... After which the GM will immediately side with them. Then to top that off, you've got everyone and their mother automatically assuming your character is evil the second you write chaotic neutral on a sheet. Most chaotic neutral characters do NOT, and I repeat do NOT, go far enough over the line to constitute being evil unless the GM is pretty rough. Having a minority act one way shouldn't stain the majority but quite clearly has.
To Annoying Orange: Being chaotic does not automatically imply that you are always impulsive. In fact, quite a number of chaotic characters (PCs as well as NPCs from official written materials hailing from all over) are prone to far reaching, ridiculously complex plans that might take decades to come to fruition.
I think the issue is, if a DM says "No evil characters" players will end up doing CN characters, because CN isn't disallowed, and you can usually get away with some of the the morally ambiguous actions an evil character would. The problem comes with the fact that (and I must state, moral ambiguity isn't a bad thing, necessarily, but it can be a problem when the campaign tone doesn't support it) this is what a lot of DMs are trying to avoid.
|
|
If that's the case they should simply state that CN characters are to have an inclination towards good in their setting. Part of the point behind the alignment is ordinarily to have a morally ambiguous character, after all. It will probably be prone to some evil activities, but it should likewise be inclined to do good here or there. Or, y'know, maybe it's like the brujah out of VtM. Just wants to go in a bar, get plastered and layeth the smacketh down on everything in sight. It can mean a lot of things. It could simply be a self-serving jackass that looks out for his own behind and his own behind only. That's not evil; that's survival.
To Annoying Orange: Being chaotic does not automatically imply that you are always impulsive. In fact, quite a number of chaotic characters (PCs as well as NPCs from official written materials hailing from all over) are prone to far reaching, ridiculously complex plans that might take decades to come to fruition.
I am not saying they can't plan but rather that they wouldn't plan such an evil act, neither can you see one act separate from others. If you are tagging an alignment to this act would most likely be neutral evil.
Personally think there are too many alignments:
LG, NG, N, NE CE is all you really need.
'I am chaotic not evil !' comes up way too many times.
If that's the case they should simply state that CN characters are to have an inclination towards good in their setting. Part of the point behind the alignment is ordinarily to have a morally ambiguous character, after all. It will probably be prone to some evil activities, but it should likewise be inclined to do good here or there. Or, y'know, maybe it's like the brujah out of VtM. Just wants to go in a bar, get plastered and layeth the smacketh down on everything in sight. It can mean a lot of things. It could simply be a self-serving jackass that looks out for his own behind and his own behind only. That's not evil; that's survival.
Morally Ambiguous = Evil, even evil characters do not have to be rotten through and through. Playing a mass murdering chaotic neutral crazy man gives evil a bad reputation.
|
|
I am not saying they can't plan but rather that they wouldn't plan such an evil act, neither can you see one act separate from others. If you are tagging an alignment to this act would most likely be neutral evil.
Why shouldn't the character have the occasional bout of evil? Chaotic neutral characters COULD have a strong sense of morality or justice, but uh... they don't have to. My above post yours pretty well covers my thoughts on the matter. By the by, being morally ambiguous does not necessarily denote evil. Chaotic neutral is normally a brilliant example of being in a moral grey area. You can think, "You know, I bet I'd be able to profit if I burned this village full of elves down and stole all their stuff. .. But I won't do it." Even good people have evil thoughts sometimes. I'd imagine someone that ISN'T good would have them more often and even act on'em at times.
Why shouldn't the character have the occasional bout of evil? Chaotic neutral characters COULD have a strong sense of morality or justice, but uh... they don't have to. My above post yours pretty well covers my thoughts on the matter. By the by, being morally ambiguous does not necessarily denote evil. Chaotic neutral is normally a brilliant example of being in a moral grey area.
I am not saying they can't plan but rather that they wouldn't plan such an evil act, neither can you see one act separate from others. If you are tagging an alignment to this act would most likely be neutral evil.
"It could simply be a self-serving jackass that looks out for his own behind and his own behind only. That's not evil; that's survival."
That is far too broad, as long as it isn't a necessity to commit evil acts to survive you can't explain them away as neutral. Taking survival too far is what makes it evil.
|
|
Committing an evil act doesn't have to be a necessity for it to remain within the purview of neutral. The idea is not to commit grossly evil acts. If you do TOO much evil then it really can't be justified as a neutral character anymore. There needs to be a sort of balance. Let's use theft for example. Rogue sees a rich guy with holycrap gold. Scouts his house for a few days, breaks in and robs him blind. Evil? Yep. ... But that's pretty appropriate for neutral if you're the self-serving jackass variety. Now if he were to say, go kill everyone in the house in their sleep? THEN it's an issue. I could possibly see killing them if they catch him and engage. It's at that point your minor evil act has turned into a case of, "I'm boned if I don't eliminate this witness." A smart rogue would be concealing their features during that sort of mission to begin with; in the end, one does what one must. Well, I would say that is the case within reason. There is a big difference between saving your bacon and killing a bunch of innocent people in their sleep.
In regards to the OP's question, I'd say what their mentioned rogue did would qualify as evil. Killed helpless people? Check. Sure they were enemies, but they probably wouldn't be coming back for round two. I can understand if these were individuals that the rogue had good reason to believe would indeed remain dangerous, but that was otherwise quite an evil act.
1) Is the act of "finishing off" disabled enemies an act that falls within the very gray purview of Chaotic Neutral, or does this press toward evil?
The alignment system is in regards to INNOCENT PEOPLE, not those who have actively tried to kill you. Killing people who tried to kill you is neutral since you can only assume that if they survive that they will attempt to kill you in the future.
Stabilizing them, tying them up, waking them up, informing them that you'll let them live if they leave you alone, then, if they agree, releasing them is generally considered a "Good" action.
However, the alignment system is not dichotomous, so everything short of the "good" option is not evil. Killing them is neutral. Taking them prisoner so you can slowly torture them to death for your own amusement while you cackle with lighting behind you is "Evil".
It is neither good nor evil to kill people who would kill you. A Chaotic Neutral Character believes that the forces of Law and Order stand around holding cardboard boxes, drinking coffee, and walking down the street briskly instead of actually meriting out punishment. They believe the Law is ineffective, and that they MUST take action, to become the judge, jury, and executioner to make the world a better place. Killing off the people who decided they should kill a random group of adventurers is just common sense. If the characters are good then it boils down to if the characters feel that the bad-guys are "too far gone" to be left alive. There comes a point when even the Paladin turns his sword hilt up and plunges it into the villain's heart.
2) If it presses toward evil, by how much? All the way to Chaotic Evil? Half way?
It isn't evil, so, not at all. If someone broke into your house, tried to kill you, and you killed him in self defense then no biggie. What if that person was a known murderer but you didn't kill him with your attacks but instead incapacitated him. The better option is to kill him just in the case that the law doesn't execute him.
3) How do you handle this sort of thing in game?
They killed someone who tried to kill them. No big surprise. Pharasma judge their souls!
"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."
"Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient."
"...kill without qualms if doing so is convenient."
The murders were Evil. It's literally right in the rules. Whether that makes the character Evil or whether this is just a rare evil act is harder to tell.
You are correct, but only in that these are focused towards innocent people who have neither done anything to the characters nor have a bounty on their heads from a reputable source.
Also, the Rogue had qualms about letting these murderers and killers live since they would obviously just come back to try and kill them again, OR the bandits would just go and kill other less formidable people.
So,
It's literally right in the rules
as you said, but that the rules oppose your point of view. The rogue's actions were not evil since the people he was killing were not innocent and would have just sought a second chance or killed other people instead.
To be honest, I think the best example of how I view Chaotic Neutral is Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly and Serenity.
So, yeah, sometimes, the CN character will shoot first. That's part of how they survive.
I'd say it's evil and very much so. This isn't going a bit too far in the heat of the moment, this is pretty much premeditated murder.
The way I see the chaotic alignments can be best explained by an example of different Stormcasters/druids/whatever flying over head:
The CG one will specifically target his lightning bolts at evil people and other enemies, taking special care not to hit anyone else.
The CE one will try to hit as many people as possible, raining down destruction on everything within sight.
The CN one revels in the storm itself more that having a purpose with it. He just storms. He does not intend to hit people and if he can help it he won't but he pays no special attention to it. If he ends up killing someone unintended he won't gloat like the CE one but probably actually feels remorse. That is assuming he noticed at all.
As a chaotically-aligned character, the rogue wouldn't necessarily trust the law or another ordered group who he does not know personally and trust to handle the situation.
However, he has alternatives to killing them. For example, blackmailing them, intimidating them, geasing them to never come within 100 miles of his presence...are all ways he can gain his own personal assurances that they would no longer be a threat. That is, a situation he can create where he could control or have a more personal assurance of the outcome could arguably more fit with a chaotic mindset. Remember, chaos tends to not trust authority.* They are more independent.
Given his reasons, I'd give him a warning and then see what else he does...but also remind him that he has more independent, more personal-freedom-oriented options to handle the situation than outright killing. It just takes a little creativity and can lead to some great storylines and chardev.
*I am not implying that a lawful character is incapable of not trusting authority, merely that a chaotic one is much more likely to distrust it and seek alternatives. In fact, trust can define a lot of chaos' interaction with structure of many kinds.
To phrase it another way, "I trust myself, my friends, and those I know and have met." An organization or government can be seen, aside from being restrictive, also as scary or frightening. This is because it's outside the chaotic person's personal control. They're unknown. And they have a lot of authority.
How DO you know the constable will do the right thing? Unless you know them, personally, or at least by reputation? The chaotic person's less likely to trust that they will!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"When does Chaotic Neutral become Evil?"
Usually no more than about fifteen minutes after a player says, "Oh, and my character is Chaotic Neutral."
Everytime I see a Chaotic Neutral character I always ask myself a simple question: "When does the CN character start by torturing, killing, or threaten helpless enemies with torture/killing?" I have run into three CN characters and three in a row have employed one of the three in my question.
Chaotic Neutral? More like Chaotic Psycho.
Heh heh heh...
Really, though, it does depend on what the character is doing. For example, one of my characters is an Oracle of Yog-Sothoth (and the Outer Gods in general), gaining power from unknowable, Lovecraftian abominations to fuel what she does. She's also Chaotic Neutral... but does lean towards good for a variety of reasons. In fact, she actively dislikes evil, because people confusing things about her faith bothers her.
Of course, her faith isn't popular in the area (Wrath of the Righteous setting), and she regularly subverts the law - she knows how to deal with thieves and smugglers, and she's quite willing to make use of their services to get what she needs. She tries to avoid dealing with the law as much as possible, going along with them when it's convenient but turning against them if that's the best for the situation. She is not, however, unpredictable and random in everything she does - chaos doesn't have to mean "completely random and insane", after all. The character simply has her own goals and is determinedly trying to reach them in her own way.
I would say that neutrality crosses over into evil when... well, I suppose it's when an act is done with the intention of being evil. As it's been noted, the reasons for doing something matter a lot. For the "bleeding helpless enemies dry" thing, I could see a vigilante reason ("they would have hurt others in the future, and this way the gods can deal with them and let them try again in their next life") as a reasonably CN explanation for something like that. Good would be a bit harder, but it could be done. If an act couldn't be justified with a reasonable amount of leeway, then call it like you see it.
Killing a defenseless person is evil, no matter how you slice it. If he refused to accept their surrender, that I could live with as a chaotic neutral. Set them adrift, lock them in a cell to starve, cave in a wall leaving them at the mercy of an enraged dragon, all of these actions would line up with a chaotic neutral, but killing a defenseless foe? Nope evil all the way.
Killing a defenseless person is evil, no matter how you slice it.
So... Should I untie the evil and vengeful supervillain and give him a fighting chance before I kill him? What about executioners? What if slice vertically instead of horizontal this time?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everytime I see a Chaotic Neutral character I always ask myself a simple question: "When does the CN character start by torturing, killing, or threaten helpless enemies with torture/killing?" I have run into three CN characters and three in a row have employed one of the three in my question.
Chaotic Neutral? More like Chaotic Psycho.
Scroll up to my example. That's a character who definitely has killed a helpless enemy before... except said helpless enemy was one he was intended to let go and that enemy threatened to hunt him down. He took the enemy at their word. He's also a character who has repeatedly caused himself problems by doing the right thing instead of what he was hired to do.
One of those problems he caused led to him turning his single band on an old, half-busted cargo ship into a credible threat against an entire military armada... So, sometimes it worked out rather well.
Considering my group has had to deal with several enemies who surrendered only to escape prison and be a big threat in the future (and killing several Sandpoint guards), I will have no problem if the CN member of the party refuses to accept prisoners in the future.
Yes, I was evil (I'm the GM, I'm supposed to be!)
Examples of Chaotic Neutral characters in popular media:
Riddick
Deadpool
Captain Jack Sparrow
The Incredible Hulk
Delirium (Sandman)
Lobo
Tyler Durden
Snake Pliskin
Conan the Barbarian (the novel version)
Smeagol (not Gollum)
Lestat
Vala (Stargate)
Raziel (Legacy of Kain)
Bugs Bunny
Not sure if this will help or hinder the discussion, but I find it is useful to have relatable characters to compare to rather than the two paragraph alignment blurb in the books.
Examples of Chaotic Neutral characters in popular media:
Riddick
Deadpool
Captain Jack Sparrow
The Incredible Hulk
Delirium (Sandman)
Lobo
Tyler Durden
Snake Pliskin
Conan the Barbarian (the novel version)
Smeagol (not Gollum)
Lestat
Vala (Stargate)
Raziel (Legacy of Kain)
Bugs BunnyNot sure if this will help or hinder the discussion, but I find it is useful to have relatable characters to compare to rather than the two paragraph alignment blurb in the books.
It's been a while since I watched a Riddick movie, but isn't he more CE?
It's been a while since I watched a Riddick movie, but isn't he more CE?
Examples of Chaotic Neutral characters in popular media:
Riddick
Deadpool
Captain Jack Sparrow
The Incredible Hulk
Delirium (Sandman)
Lobo
Tyler Durden
Snake Pliskin
Conan the Barbarian (the novel version)
Smeagol (not Gollum)
Lestat
Vala (Stargate)
Raziel (Legacy of Kain)
Bugs BunnyNot sure if this will help or hinder the discussion, but I find it is useful to have relatable characters to compare to rather than the two paragraph alignment blurb in the books.
Probably NE; he is shown to have a bit of a moral code, but even in the first movie it's established both by himself and others that he kills because he enjoys killing... and that he is as much of a predator as the very monsters they are dealing with. The second movie starts with one of the survivors of the first outright calling him evil, and that survivor was one of his friends.
It's been a while since I watched a Riddick movie, but isn't he more CE?Probably NE; he is shown to have a bit of a moral code, but even in the first movie it's established both by himself and others that he kills because he enjoys killing... and that he is as much of a predator as the very monsters they are dealing with. The second movie starts with one of the survivors of the first outright calling him evil, and that survivor was one of his friends.
Can be very hard to agree on alignments and/or shove someone into a box.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."
"Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient."
"...kill without qualms if doing so is convenient."
The murders were Evil. It's literally right in the rules. Whether that makes the character Evil or whether this is just a rare evil act is harder to tell.
You are correct, but only in that these are focused towards innocent people who have neither done anything to the characters nor have a bounty on their heads from a reputable source.
Also, the Rogue had qualms about letting these murderers and killers live since they would obviously just come back to try and kill them again, OR the bandits would just go and kill other less formidable people.
So,
It's literally right in the rulesas you said, but that the rules oppose your point of view. The rogue's actions were not evil since the people he was killing were not innocent and would have just sought a second chance or killed other people instead.Except that part isn't about killing innocent people. It's just about killing in general. You're adding stuff that isn't there.
Good for you for rationalizing the unlawful murder of prisoners, btw.
Good Versus Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
The Good VS Evil scale is based in regards to innocent life. If someone tries to kill you then it is neutral to kill them. Otherwise soldiers fighting in wars are absolutely, and to the very core of their beings Evil monsters due to their willingness to kill other people as a profession.
Hell, even the town guard with their hanging of bandits, murderers, and killers are evil.The key word here is innocent. Someone who has attacked you isn't innocent since they made the conscious decision to try and kill you. You can therefore make the assumption that these same people will attempt to kill other less formidable foes in the future if they survive. Even without the future sight, killing them isn't evil.
Killing isn't evil. Killing is normal. Adventurers are basically mass murderers who travel around, and if you cannot understand that killing your enemies who have tried to kill you is neutral at worst or even good at best then everyone who has ever taken a life or had to take a life is bat-s+#+ evil. Yes, that includes Paladins.
Key word:
To push this even further the celestial armies and the fiendish armies clash all the time. I guess whenever those celestials kill any fiends--an evil act according to your ideologies--they obviously prove that they are evil.
Killing a defenseless person is evil, no matter how you slice it. If he refused to accept their surrender, that I could live with as a chaotic neutral. Set them adrift, lock them in a cell to starve, cave in a wall leaving them at the mercy of an enraged dragon, all of these actions would line up with a chaotic neutral, but killing a defenseless foe? Nope evil all the way.
Incorrect. There are people who should not exist, and when man becomes monster then man must be destroyed like a monster. That is the basic calling card of evil. They gazed a bit too much into the abyss.
Lets look at your ideas here:1) Set them adrift: I am guessing this is at sea? Being set adrift at sea is essentially killing them slowly. Instead of a quick rapier to the heart with shock following shortly, you instead condemn them to suffer dying of thirst while being surrounded by water. This is torture. There IS a chance they will be rescued, but that chance, unless you set them adrift in a major shipping channel with ships daily, is infinitesimal. So, congratulations, this is probably one of the most evil things you can do to someone.
2) lock them in a cell to starve: I am assuming that since you are saying "starve" that you are supplying them with water so they do not die from dehydration first. Congratulations, you just made a decidedly evil action as starving to death is not only torturous but very long. They will probably commit suicide if they can since their evil captors--you--will not let them leave.
3) cave in a wall leaving them at the mercy of an enraged dragon: So, you put off killing them to the dragon. So instead of sticking the shiv in yourself you leave it to a dragon. So in other words, you kill them but you don't do it yourself, no, you do is James Bond Villain style. Where is your cat, dear friend? Where is Mr. Mittenpuffs of World domination.
So, you have only offered exceedingly cruel ways to kill people. I'm not sure how you think these things are "good" or even "neutral". The last one with the dragon is just plain cowardly because you can't take the responsibility to kill someone yourself and just shunt it off to someone else.
AND speaking of the dragon: What happens when that villain actually makes a deal with the dragon, gets a bunch of irate dragons to join him, and then they just come burn down the town you are in and kill you for just assuming he is dead. Naturally, due to your foresight at this being a possibility, you wont be upset at such a turn of events, nor will you be upset that your actions indirectly lead to the deaths of everyone in the town and that you are also partially responsible for their deaths.
Don't worry, however, Pharasma knows all.
I don't know if I put up a sign yet, but better late than never.
Alignment, reading, subjective morality, etc. all tend to fall under personal opinion and vary greatly. How this works out in game varies from game to game.
It seems common to think that Chaotic Neutral characters can't or don't have a moral code. This is wrong. Often, a self-imposed moral code is the one thing that keeps a Chaotic Neutral character from being Evil.
That isn't to say it's required either. Some do, some don't. It is definitely an option for them though.
As for Riddick, according to TV Tropes and the Personality section of his own entry on his own Wikia he's Chaotic Neutral.
It seems common to think that Chaotic Neutral characters can't or don't have a moral code. This is wrong. Often, a self-imposed moral code is the one thing that keeps a Chaotic Neutral character from being Evil.
Strict personal code falls under lawful though, I thought.
It seems common to think that Chaotic Neutral characters can't or don't have a moral code. This is wrong. Often, a self-imposed moral code is the one thing that keeps a Chaotic Neutral character from being Evil.Strict personal code falls under lawful though, I thought.
A common misnomer. Having a personal code doesn't make you lawful. Robin Hood had a personal code. You think he was lawful?
The Escapist published This Article a while back.
In my opinion it's the best breakdown and analysis of the D&D alignment system ever written.
It uses modern philosophy as a foundation and analogue, so a basic understanding of ethical theory is helpful.
The most important part is the end, where the author breaks down how a society that exemplariness a certain alignment would naturally see their own virtues as "good", and then shows how those societies might view opposing philosophies through that lens.
One act cannot define an alignment.
The point system up thread is the best method of keeping track.
However don't forget to remove an evil point if he saves the villagers or removes a evil bbeg.
It swings both ways. People are quick to point out the evil side of actions but tend to forget the good ones.
If your rogue just helped good guys all the time, acting all nice and dandy I'm sure the reverse of this threads' question wouldn't be being asked!