D&D 5E A Villain For Every Alignment

[Reynard]

Sometimes doing the right thing leads to suffering, like sometimes doing the wrong thing leads to prosperity. Doesn't change the actions themselves, and the type of person making them. Though, folks do find happy points a compelling argument and salve to the hurt caused on the way.

Emphasis mine.

In the context of D&D, where morality is objective, this is true. But it is also perfectly reasonable from a philosophical point of view to say that the morality of an action is based solely on its outcome. Whether an action was good or evil is entirely dependent on whether it resulted in good or evil. Or, it is entirely possible to say that the intent behind an act is the definition of whether it is good or evil, regardless of its outcome.

But, in D&D, what is Good is a defined objective truth based on immutable cosmic laws. "Good" is as true as the speed of light or the effect of gravity. In that light, the question of morality isn't really that interesting.

 

[payn]

In the context of D&D, where morality is objective, this is true. But it is also perfectly reasonable from a philosophical point of view to say that the morality of an action is based solely on its outcome. Whether an action was good or evil is entirely dependent on whether it resulted in good or evil. Or, it is entirely possible to say that the intent behind an act is the definition of whether it is good or evil, regardless of its outcome.

This. There are actions that I see as evil, but have outcomes that are good, and I can ultimately live with the result. I will not, however, think the person was good or right for taking them.

 

[Reynard]

This. There are actions that I see as evil, but have outcomes that are good, and I can ultimately live with the result. I will not, however, think the person was good or right for taking them.

Sure, but in D&D's objective alignment system, it is all that matters. If sacrificing an innocent is wrong, in D&D it is wrong no matter how many people it might otherwise save. (Whether it is wrong in real life or not is not so clear cut but we are probably not supposed to be debating that here.)

 

[Stormonu]

The CN villain:

This person is a wanderer, passing from place to place making odd coin where convenient. They've spent years dabbling in various trades in their wandering, so they're quite skilled. They've felt like they've done everything mundane, and now they've become an adrenaline junkie. They happily smuggle contraband from one place to another, right under the noses of the police. Sometimes the contraband actually makes it to its destination, if the wanderer isn't content to blow it on parties or charge "a little extra" at the destination. Most of all, the wanderer snubs whatever laws they run across, and will often pay, cajole or threaten others to undertake acts that require breaking the law. If the law gets too close, the wanderer simply packs up and moves on to the next place of the map, laughing all the way.

 

[payn]

Sure, but in D&D's objective alignment system, it is all that matters. If sacrificing an innocent is wrong, in D&D it is wrong no matter how many people it might otherwise save. (Whether it is wrong in real life or not is not so clear cut but we are probably not supposed to be debating that here.)

Which has an interesting side effect on a lot of players. If killing an innocent in D&D was a way to power or shortcut to concluding adventures, they would scowler high and low for ways to justify it as not evil for their characters. Part of that comes from the perception that D&D PCs are supposed to always be heroes, and the age of "no evil" GMing.

 

[Zardnaar]

Depends on how the sacrifice is made imho.

Voluntarily rear guard Acton is a sacrifice would call it evil.

LG could be intolerant towards chains and neutrals for example. They woukd kill them or anything more of a tight knight commute. Everyone's looked after but you have to conform.

Place coukd be a real drag. Punishments wouldn't be excessively cruel but shunning and exile for non capital offenses.

Good aligned nation coukd be armed to the teeth but expansion beyond diplomatic means wouldn't be good aligned imho. Unless your eighbours the self proclaimed dark lord offensive military action is off the tables imho.