This whole discussion is mute. Why? Under what society are we determining what is a Good or Evil action? Plus, motivation and selfish desire would also determine if an action is good or evil.
The case of somebody taking a hit for a fellow party member for the soul purpose of that party member now owing the character and is in debt to him. Just because the action itself could be construed as good, the reason behind it dictates that it is an evil action.
But... What is Good? What is Evil? These are philosophical debates that have no clear cut answers and never will. Also, just because WE in our western society think something is evil, perhaps in a different culture and in a different society those same actions are seen as Good.
This is why alignments in roleplaying games fail so much, because each player has his/her own interpretation of what is considered good/evil or law/chaos, and then we have to rely upon one person (the DM) being open minded enough and able enough to look beyond just his/her own view on it and take into consideration how everybody else views them. Alignments are a failure in execution because they are so limiting and they try to hard to define Good/Evil/Law/Chaos into such simple terms when these four terms are unable to be answered. If anybody can come up with a good answer for them, and convince the philosophers of the world that they are correct, that person would be the smartest individual alive.
But since we are discussing what our Characters would do that we would determine if they are evil or not, giving to charity could be seen as a good action, but giving to charity false gold or gold that has been poisoned or trapped, while seen as good at first, is inherently evil. But, if the poisoned gold is intended for a certain person and if that person is using the charity to launder money towards his own aims but the poison doesn't worked as planned and therefore hurts more than just him (by accident), is it evil because it hurt lots of individual people, including the crook? Or, is it still good despite the abundance of life? What would determine if it's evil or good?
I guess, the answer would be motiviation of the person.
Think Dead Zone. Here we have a person who knows that by letting one person live and become president, he would start World War 3. So, the only way for him to stop WW3 is to assassinate the person. Is this Good or Evil? Is it Evil to stoop to those measure to kill one person, thereby taking a life (and innocent because he hasn't committed the crime yet) to prevent the future, or what?