Good and bad things that a Good/Evil character would do

[Quasqueton]

If I were to make a list of "good things" that a Good aligned character/creature would do, starting with minor good and going up to major good, what would you suggest?

How about a list of "bad things" that an Evil character/creature would do, starting with minor bad to major bad.

These need to be kept to a D&D/medieval-type setting. And these things need to be obviously good or bad things, with as little grayness as possible. For instance: "Killing" in a D&D setting can be argued as good or bad. "Murder" isn't as arguable.

Quasqueton

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

This is tangentially on topic, but it's one of the most interesting (and frightening) things I've read.

It's called Psychopaths Among Us.

In another Hare study, groups of letters were flashed to volunteers. Some of them were nonsense, some formed real words. The subject's job was to press a button whenever he recognized a real word, while Hare recorded response time and brain activity. Non-psychopaths respond faster and display more brain activity when processing emotionally loaded words such as "rape" or "cancer" than when they see neutral words such as "tree." With psychopaths, Hare found no difference. To them, "rape" and "tree" have the same emotional impact -- none.

The whole article is here:
http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html

 

[Quasqueton]

<makes note> "Rape" goes in the Evil column. "Tree" goes under Neutral.

Quasqueton

 

[shilsen]

<makes note> "Rape" goes in the Evil column. "Tree" goes under Neutral.

Quasqueton

I wouldn't make that simple a distinction. Observe:

http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05042002.html

 

[velm]

I think it would depend on the 'evil' person. I have always viewed the NE person as one who would do many different things.

-The NE could give to charity: what is 5 gp when you have 10,000? and it will put you in the good graces with that charity. Got that horrible disease, you can always petition on how charitable you are.
-You can take an arrow for that mage: why not, if you think you handle it. What makes more sense getting a little hurt now, so the party mage will 'owe' you later. You can always use to your advantage.

These are just two examples of what a NE could do, after all it about ones self.

A LE would come in a close second in what amount of 'good' they could do, but not quite as much.

I think that when a lot of people think of evil they think of the stereotypes. Either a blood thirsty pirate type or an evil brooding mage type. The spectrum can fall anywhere inbetween.

(I prefer NG, BTW)

 

[Quasqueton]

<makes note> "Giving to charity" goes in the Good column [even if an Evil character does it for his own selfish reasons]. "Taking harm for a comrade" goes in the Good column [even if an Evil character does it for his own selfish reasons].

Let's not get this thread confused. I'm not asking for things a Good or Evil character might do in certain circumstances or for certain reasons. I'm asking for things that all/most can agree on are "good" or "bad" things.

Quasqueton

 

[velm]

<makes note> "Giving to charity" goes in the Good column [even if an Evil character does it for his own selfish reasons]. "Taking harm for a comrade" goes in the Good column [even if an Evil character does it for his own selfish reasons].

Let's not get this thread confused. I'm not asking for things a Good or Evil character might do in certain circumstances or for certain reasons. I'm asking for things that all/most can agree on are "good" or "bad" things.

Quasqueton

If that is the case, then it is pretty easy. If a person walks into town and walks up to a shopkeeper and stabs him in the neck, that is bad.
If a person walks into town and a building is on fire, that person runs in and saves a baby, that is good.
As far as 'general' good and bad things go, it is pretty much clear cut.

 

[Quasqueton]

<makes note>"Random stabbing" goes in the Evil column. "Risking personal harm to rescue stranger" goes in the Good column.

Quasqueton

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Offering small graces, I'd count as good. My paladin at one point executed a soldier of the Evil Empire (tm). Before doing so, he gave the man the opportunity to compose a letter to his family, and had it delivered after the man was gone.

 

[Acid_crash]

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?