"Good" vs "Nice"
- Thread starter Kahuna Burger
- Start date
the Jester
Legend
Kahuna Burger said:Do Good and Nice match up in your experience? Is Evil always Mean, or can Evil be Nice? Mean vs Nice could be the third allignment axis, I suppose... Ethical, Moral and Personal?
What a great topic!
Good and nice do not have to match up in my campaign. Evil can be nice and good can be unfriendly. I have examples of all that imc- from LG priests who are overzealous in their persecution of other religions to npcs who are evil philosophically and in the overall effects of their actions but are civilized, cultured and friendly.
buzzard
First Post
I have a character in LG who is nuetral good. However is is only of good alignment because he sees that in the big fights affecting the world, you eventually do have to choose sides, and evil won't leave much of a world worth living in. Other than in matters of the big fight, he's not a particularly pleasant individual. He won't deliberately harm anyone, but he won't be much help either. Rather a nuetral good heavy on the nuetral. When it comes to world (country, etc) saving he will always step up though.
buzzard
buzzard
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
In my games, being nice does not mean that a character is good. Lots of villains are nice to people they like (and to people they want to deceive). Perhaps more to the point, a number of neutrals are prevented from being good by the desire to be nice, to avoid conflict, and to avoid confronting unpleasant truths. To paraphrase Dumbledore from a recent movie, they do the easy thing rather than the right thing. So, being nice doesn't mean that a character is good.
Whether there is a correlation between being good and being nice is another matter. Kindness is a virtue. Cruelty is a vice. A character who is actively and intentionally cruel could easily become neutral. So, I don't think that a good character can be horrribly mean. That said, being assertive, abrasive and even confrontational is not always the same thing as being mean. It would not be inappropriate to cast a good character in the role of Patton slapping the soldier who he saw as a coward. It's not deliberately cruel, nor is it necessarily mean (though the papers back home will portray it that way and get him removed from command). However, it's definitely not hand-holding at a tea party and it's not "nice."
In a recent campaign, I played a paladin and probably the biggest conflict in the party was between him and the party's cleric (same alignment and the same deity). Why was there conflict? Because my paladin was an aggressive, assertive, and decisive take charge kind of character and the cleric didn't have any of those characteristics by nature... and the cleric was supposed to be in charge. If something needed to be done or something needed to be said, my paladin was the kind of guy who would do it or say it. The cleric felt like that was undermining his authority. Combined with our different assessments of one of the NPCs' motives, this turned out to be what was probably the most heated and persistent interparty conflict in any campaign in the two years I've been playing with the group. But both characters were good aligned--and appropriately so.
Whether there is a correlation between being good and being nice is another matter. Kindness is a virtue. Cruelty is a vice. A character who is actively and intentionally cruel could easily become neutral. So, I don't think that a good character can be horrribly mean. That said, being assertive, abrasive and even confrontational is not always the same thing as being mean. It would not be inappropriate to cast a good character in the role of Patton slapping the soldier who he saw as a coward. It's not deliberately cruel, nor is it necessarily mean (though the papers back home will portray it that way and get him removed from command). However, it's definitely not hand-holding at a tea party and it's not "nice."
In a recent campaign, I played a paladin and probably the biggest conflict in the party was between him and the party's cleric (same alignment and the same deity). Why was there conflict? Because my paladin was an aggressive, assertive, and decisive take charge kind of character and the cleric didn't have any of those characteristics by nature... and the cleric was supposed to be in charge. If something needed to be done or something needed to be said, my paladin was the kind of guy who would do it or say it. The cleric felt like that was undermining his authority. Combined with our different assessments of one of the NPCs' motives, this turned out to be what was probably the most heated and persistent interparty conflict in any campaign in the two years I've been playing with the group. But both characters were good aligned--and appropriately so.
Nyeshet
First Post
Another aspect to consider is that many of the peoples in ancient times viewed only their only race / culture / settlement as 'people'. Others were humans but not people - and so anything they did to them had no bearing in their own minds (or in the minds of their countrymen / etc) as to whether they were good or evil. So they could be kind, loving, nice, affectionate while home, but while abroad they might be raiding, sacking, burning, backstabbing, etc. The vikings were noted for their viciousness amongst many of the peoples they raided, but at home they may as well have been another people entirely.
There is no reason not to play evil NPCs in this manner - good in all respects to their family, community, race, etc, but downright vicious and perhaps even nasty to those outside of that community. Or perhaps very manipulative and readily betraying them because they are not 'of his race / community / clan / etc'.
It is something to consider. I've always found the b/w view of villains (and villain races / communities) that many D&D products have as unrealistic in part for this reason.
There is no reason not to play evil NPCs in this manner - good in all respects to their family, community, race, etc, but downright vicious and perhaps even nasty to those outside of that community. Or perhaps very manipulative and readily betraying them because they are not 'of his race / community / clan / etc'.
It is something to consider. I've always found the b/w view of villains (and villain races / communities) that many D&D products have as unrealistic in part for this reason.
My players have told me a number of times that I am completely incapable of creating bad guys who are not charismatic and nice. By the time I left Vancouver, they had come to assume that if someone came across as nice and convincing, they were immediate candidates for the BBEG role.Bastoche said:
John Q. Mayhem
Explorer
fusangite said:
Well, you are a politician, aren't you?
Mouseferatu
Hero
Not only does "good" not have to equate to "nice," I'd take it a step further.
"Good" does not have to equate to "honorable."
Now, I don't mean "honorable" as far as keeping one's word, that sort of thing. I'm talking about codes of battle. Taking advantage of an opponent's distraction, launching a sneak attack, or even stabbing a foe in the back are certainly not honorable by most codes of battle, but I'd argue that they're not necessarily evil.
"Good" does not have to equate to "honorable."
Now, I don't mean "honorable" as far as keeping one's word, that sort of thing. I'm talking about codes of battle. Taking advantage of an opponent's distraction, launching a sneak attack, or even stabbing a foe in the back are certainly not honorable by most codes of battle, but I'd argue that they're not necessarily evil.
Similar Threads
