How "mean" can Good be?

[Melville's Book]

Good as an alignment doesn't require you to be polite, encouraging, or even at all "nice". In fact, a Good person, especially a non-Lawful one, can still be a pretty big jerk while staying within the bounds of his alignment. However, I figure there's only so far that can go.

If you are vicious, belittling, and verbally display hatred for a person who has not committed a wrongdoing, does that violate the "respect for life and dignity" of Good such that it might give a Good alignment pause? Assuming Good actions in every other regard, is verbal racism/sexism/the destruction of someone's self-esteem Evil enough to cause, oh, a Paladin to fall?

Assuming no deception and the like, just how verbally horrible can a person who is action-wise completely Good get before it becomes Evil and threatens his alignment?

[Slipperychicken]

I'd consider drawing the line somewhere around genuine malice. You need to consider how and why this person is acting the way he/she is. If someone feels serious, enduring hatred (I'm talking on the span of years), but is otherwise in compliance with principles of good alignment, you might want to consider switching that person to Neutral.

As far as paladins go, I don't think disrespect alone is fall-worthy (assuming it isn't part of another evil act), but I think it could help shift a Paladin toward neutrality.

[HaikenEdge]

It really depends on the DM; if the DM subscribes to the "sticks and stones" school of thought, then you can probably get away with saying a lot of stuff, but if your DM goes with the "words are weapons" school, then I imagine verbal abuse, badgering, and bullying can be interpreted towards evil.

[Telonius]

I'd imagine something like the Church of Garl Glittergold would have an extensive theology worked out, as to how far a person can take a joke before it's too far. (Clerics of Kurtulmak would likely have something to say on the subject, as well).

[BWR]

Check with your DM to make sure.
Personally, I allow a bit of leeway here and there. You are generally perfectly within your rights to be as LG as they come and verbally lamabst an Evil opponent in manner to make sailors blush. If your character has some sort of requirement to be polite and well-mannered even to the worst BBEG imaginable, then you're looking at an alignment violation.

Bullying is rarely acceptable for Good people. Using Intimidate to temporarily coerce baddies to avoid doing bad stuff is perfectly acceptable ("I don't want to have to come back here and find out you've been beating people up again"). Using it as a long-term solution to a problem is not ("hello again. you haven't been a bad boy while I was away, have you? Huh? You know I would have to be pretty unpleasant to you if you have, and that makes me sad, and you wouldn't want to make me sad, right?")

[Curmudgeon]

{Scrubbed}

[Gwaednerth]

It depends on three factors as I see it.
1) intent- whether or not the comment is actually intended to cause harm and not just grumpiness/habit
2) the recipient- is the abuse justifiable? Are you belittling Baron Evil of Wickedshire or innocent peasant no. 3?
3) the result- does the recipient break down under the abuse? If you accidentally belittled someone who was depressed and they committed suicide, damn straight its an evil act. If it just slides right off, it really depends on the other two.

[BWR]

I could certainly argue that, but I fear we would be violating baord rules. Suffice to say in a setting where you (presumably) have an objective morality, as D&D is generally assumed to have, you should have the details clear so characters don't accidentally violate their alignment because of miscommunication between DM and player. If the DM rules that allowing people to suffer horrible pain because pain is close to good, then allowing suffering is good. If the DM rules that refusing to soothe pain for whatever bull**** reason is evil, then it's evil.

[Slipperychicken]

3) the result- does the recipient break down under the abuse? If you accidentally belittled someone who was depressed and they committed suicide, damn straight its an evil act. If it just slides right off, it really depends on the other two.

I don't buy that. You can't be evil by accident -even the nicest people say the wrong thing now and then.

[Manly Man]

Honestly, the best example I can think of for someone who's mean, yet still good, is Granny Weatherwax. The biggest component of her personality is even that being Good and Right don't mean that you're Nice.

[Dr.Gara]

It depends on three factors as I see it.
1) intent- whether or not the comment is actually intended to cause harm and not just grumpiness/habit
2) the recipient- is the abuse justifiable? Are you belittling Baron Evil of Wickedshire or innocent peasant no. 3?
3) the result- does the recipient break down under the abuse? If you accidentally belittled someone who was depressed and they committed suicide, damn straight its an evil act. If it just slides right off, it really depends on the other two.

I'm not sure the result of the abuse matters so much as the fact that there is abuse. If you break them into suicide, while it's horrible, it's not an evil action in of itself, unless that was the end you were looking for. Intention and recipient matter more then the result. Trying to drive anyone, even Baron Evil of Wickedshire, into offing himself is an Evil action. If you, without any kind of malice, drive someone into killing themselves... then it's not totally your fault. You should feel guilty, but it's not an Evil action.

[Mongrel]

You're right that good doesn't necessarily mean nice; it's perfectly possible to have a good aligned villain (the villain in Watchmen comes to mind). A chaotic good forest dwelling elf might go on a murderous rampage against a group of human loggers cutting down his forest. A lawful good paladin might persecute a group of people for failing to abide by a relatively minor and unconsequential law. Keep in mind, too, that being good doesn't free you from vices. A neutral good banker who is greedy might be coerced into helping some less than moral characters with the promise of money. Of course he's unlikely to support something truly evil (like demon summoning or blatant murder of a paladin/other obviously good character), but thievery? Extortion? Power plays? That would probably be fair game.

[Seto]

I'd imagine something like the Church of Garl Glittergold would have an extensive theology worked out, as to how far a person can take a joke before it's too far. (Clerics of Kurtulmak would likely have something to say on the subject, as well).

Well... Garl Glittergold's clerics like to pull pranks on people to teach them humility and remind them not to take themselves too seriously. If they did it to hurt people's feelings just for the heck of it, that would clearly have a hint of Evil to it.

In the case of OP, I'd say it depends on the reason. If you're doing it just because you're a complete d*** and you like to make people mad/suffer, and you do it on a regular basis/all the time, I don't think you can be Good. If you're doing it because, to you, Good implies being stern, and being nice gets in the way of the task, or you like to remind people that they themselves should be humble and suffer to achieve spiritual awakening/ fulfill their duty (I could see a Paladin doing that), then it wouldn't impact your alignment.

[BWR]

You're right that good doesn't necessarily mean nice; it's perfectly possible to have a good aligned villain (the villain in Watchmen comes to mind). A chaotic good forest dwelling elf might go on a murderous rampage against a group of human loggers cutting down his forest. A lawful good paladin might persecute a group of people for failing to abide by a relatively minor and unconsequential law. Keep in mind, too, that being good doesn't free you from vices. A neutral good banker who is greedy might be coerced into helping some less than moral characters with the promise of money. Of course he's unlikely to support something truly evil (like demon summoning or blatant murder of a paladin/other obviously good character), but thievery? Extortion? Power plays? That would probably be fair game.

Sorry, but Ozymandias was not good. You know what they say about good intentions? Sure he wanted to save the world from nuclear war, but in no way was killing off half of New York anything but an evil act. Even if you assume (and I don't) that it was necessary and the only way to save the world it was a necessary evil. If you start doing evil stuff, you will quickly end up evil. A paladin persecuting people for minor stuff will quickly require an atonement and need to do some serious thinking about his actions if he wishes to become a paladin again. People have faults, yes, but good intentions do not excuse evil actions.

[jedipilot24]

The trope for this is "Good is not Nice."

Consider a literary example:
James Potter, from the Harry Potter novels, was generally a good person, risking his own life to fight against evil and eventually sacrificing his life for his family. But he was also, in his youth, a bully.
Arguably perhaps, a bully hunter, but also arguably crossing the line.

A more D&D-like example, and just as controversial, is the Kingpriest of Istar in Dragonlance. According to Paladine (who is an Expy of Bahamut), the Kingpriest was a good person, but he nonetheless did a lot of mean things and still retained his spellcasting.

[Segev]

There is a certain truth to the ancient golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If you are Good, you generally adhere to this. This may not necessarily mean you are nice to everybody, but you probably should be as nice to them as you would want them to be to you.

Additionally, Good people tend to have a certain level of empathy and caring for others. They may not be sweetness and hugs for everybody, but they're never cruel or malicious. If they're callous, it's because they don't have anything nice to say and are not going to say anything at all. If they're harsh, it's because they honestly believe what they're saying will help the person to whom they're being harsh...or is warranted to help others.

Jesus Christ, rather regarded by at least one of the largest religious groups in the world as the epitome of not just what a Good-aligned mortal should be, but The perfect example of how a Good person would behave, was harsh and hard with certain things. When He threw the moneylenders out of His Father's temple, He did so with a scourge.

Paladins - the D&D iconic epitome of Good (and Law) - are holy warriors who will beat the evil right out of somebody in order to protect the innocent from their depredations.

Good can and often will engage in Tough Love. "Cruelty" in that they might induce short-term suffering, but only for the overall good of those for whom they care. They may also enact and enforce harsh punishments for wrong-doing, if only to discourage others from doing wrong to the innocent. A halmark of good versus evil, here, is the severity of the punishment relative to the crime, and particularly the level of forgiveness for genuine repentance. It is also telling whether the one exacting the punishment enjoys the suffering it induces. Good people don't tend to take pleasure in others' pain, and generally only ACT indifferent (often to shield themselves from that empathy earlier mentioned).

The meanest and most sadistic genuinely Good people might get is a smug smirk at the mild suffering of somebody who brought it on themselves, because they know that this minor suffering is a key to avoiding worse (or achieving greater joy) later if they learn from it.

[Particle_Man]

Honestly, the best example I can think of for someone who's mean, yet still good, is Granny Weatherwax. The biggest component of her personality is even that being Good and Right don't mean that you're Nice.

The first time, I agree with you. But if it became a character trait to be thoughtless about how one's words hurt others, and one does nothing to try to correct that behaviour, then that would be going down the road to evil.

[HaikenEdge]

What's that they say, "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions"?

[Nerd-o-rama]

Getting back to the original topic and not flagrantly violating board rules prohibiting the discussion of real world religion (or trying to apply D&D morality to Watchmen, of all the damn things), it's a matter of both degree and intent.

Being a jerk is not Evil, or even really grounds for not being Good.

Being verbally abusive with the intent of causing psychological or emotional harm is something entirely different, and something I'd rate about on par with physical violence. In D&D, that means that whether or not it's Evil depends on how and why it is used. A soldier emotionally berating his subordinates R. Lee Ermey style isn't particularly Good, but it isn't enough to make someone non-Good either. A misanthrope who piles abuse on others in order to be left alone but doesn't bother anyone who doesn't bother them isn't definitely non-Good either. However, some person who verbally attacks others out of spite or prejudice or just wanting to hurt them, and makes a particular habit out of this for no other reason than "I don't like them" is acting in a non-Good manner. Whether it's Evil or Neutral probably depends on the GM, but bullying someone just for the sake of bullying them is not the behavior of a Good character.

[hamishspence]

In FC2 "humiliating an underling" is a 1 point Corrupt act, on a par with casting an [Evil] spell, but less evil than "stealing from the needy" or "betraying a friend/ally for personal gain"

"Bullying" is also on the BoVD Evil list.

Now, doing Evil deeds doesn't always mean one has an Evil alignment - but it's a step in the wrong direction.

[TypoNinja]

As far as paladins go, I don't think disrespect alone is fall-worthy (assuming it isn't part of another evil act), but I think it could help shift a Paladin toward neutrality.

Well Paladins have the additional burden of their Code to uphold, not just their Goodness, so the line can get kind of blurry for acceptable vs Good behaviour. A Paladin Code based on Samurai for example would consider polite conduct a very important aspect.

Assuming it doesn't conflict with their Code though, nothing about Good must be inherently nice, indeed at the most basic level Good is at war with Evil. War is not nice.

[Starbuck_II]

In FC2 "humiliating an underling" is a 1 point Corrupt act, on a par with casting an [Evil] spell, but less evil than "stealing from the needy" or "betraying a friend/ally for personal gain"

"Bullying" is also on the BoVD Evil list.

Now, doing Evil deeds doesn't always mean one has an Evil alignment - but it's a step in the wrong direction.

Ah, but underlings are those who work for you. So doing it to a stranger is okay, but not your butler.

[Knaight]

The trope for this is "Good is not Nice."

Consider a literary example:
James Potter, from the Harry Potter novels, was generally a good person, risking his own life to fight against evil and eventually sacrificing his life for his family. But he was also, in his youth, a bully.
Arguably perhaps, a bully hunter, but also arguably crossing the line.

That's not really an example of a good person who is also a bully. It's an example of a good person who used to be a bully. James Potter, the student at Hogwarts, was hardly a moral exemplar.

Well, let's take an historical example: Mother Teresa. The "treatment" for the inmates at her hospices such as the flagship (Home for the Dying in Calcutta) was almost all Catholic moral teaching; while food and shelter were provided, medicine was principally restricted to aspirin. She extolled suffering as bringing the dying closer to God.

Unless you're willing to argue that Mother Teresa was not Good, that seems pretty mean to me.

I'm willing to argue that Mother Teresa was not good.

[hamishspence]

Ah, but underlings are those who work for you. So doing it to a stranger is okay, but not your butler.

Might depend on the DM.

"Stealing from the needy" is the specific form of stealing called out - that doesn't mean stealing from the "non-needy" is never evil.

Same probably applies to humiliating people. Its particularly bad toward an underling - because those in power have a responsibility to those below them.

But "humiliating an equal" could be Evil too.

I figure that what happened to Carrie White in the Carrie movie probably qualifies - though her response - massacre - was something of an overreaction.

[Talya]

Unless you're willing to argue that Mother Teresa was not Good, that seems pretty mean to me.

Penn & Teller would like a word with you.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Ah, but underlings are those who work for you. So doing it to a stranger is okay, but not your butler.

I think the general intent there is to show professionalism and respect in your dealing with social inferiors, e.g the people who literally cannot defend themselves from you. Assuming a generic quasi-medieval fantasy setting, then just by dint of owning expensive weapons or a spellbook, a PC is elevated above the average commoner to a certain degree. That gets even more apparent as PCs reach higher levels. A 20th level character harrassing and insulting a town aldorman who's maybe a 5th-level Expert is not just being harsh, he's definitely being a bully and inflicting abuse on someone who cannot protect themselves. I would regard poor treatment of servants, menials, commoners in genera by a more powerful PC to be a (minor) evil act, especially if the character is someone supposed to be a moral authority and example such as a knight, paladin or cleric of a good deity.

E: I once got into a long argument with a player who wanted to go around starting bar brawls with his 10th-level fighter, regardless of the fact that he was essentially picking fights with the knowledge that he had an enormous advantage, which I considered an "evil act" while he insisted it was "harmless fun." So this can vary depending on how seriously you take your game, essentially.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Honestly, the best example I can think of for someone who's mean, yet still good, is Granny Weatherwax. The biggest component of her personality is even that being Good and Right don't mean that you're Nice.

Or Batman. Batman works pretty nicely for this.

I'm with Nerd-o-rama on this one-- "meanness" becomes evil when it crosses the line from ***holery to psychologically damaging abuse. The complexity isn't so much in where you draw the line as in the fact that the line is in a different place for everyone.

[Socratov]

to weigh in on the question: how much of a jerk can you be and still remain good? Well that's up to the DM. Some let short term acts decide your alignment, some even let consequences factor in (the let's-make-the-paladin-fall-by-putting-him-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place gambits). If it were up to me actions and alignment are bound to each other by a rope: your alignment changes according to actions, however, actions should roughly correspond to your alignment (so no changing from LG to CE).

However, being a jerk is not necessarily through actions. One can have a bad demeanour (snarky attitude, or crass demeanour) while still doing good stuff. As mentioned earlier: good is not always nice. In fictional media, yes beware the nice ones, but the not nice good ones are usually more effective at what they do. One might even call them efficient in doing good. Do they seem good? Not necessarily. Do they perform good actions? Almost assuredly. It actually reminds me of the movie Hancock with Will Smith. Yes, he is a hero and does good deeds, yes he has bad PR. People hate him because of the collateral damage even though he performs good acts all around.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm willing to argue that Mother Teresa was not good.

That's a problem here; as this forum has rules against discussing real-world religion and real-world politics, I'm not going to discuss even historical religion/politics. My reference was limited to her hospice services, which AFAIK were the result of her personal decisions with regard to how to allocate scarce resources, not any religious or political doctrine.

[Phelix-Mu]

A good person should be charitable, and forgive someone their flaws and the like, since one shouldn't throw stones in the proverbial glass house. However, even the virtuous have flaws; if a character's flaw is that they fly off the handle and curse a lot, then that is probably not the end of the world if that is all it is.

The problem with small evil acts is that they can cause unintended consequences (I curse because I don't give a damn and want to say what I'm feeling...therefore I might not notice the pain my cursing or insults can cause), and can snowball into increasingly evil behavior (I start to enjoy cursing, even if it causes pain). Thus, a truly virtuous person must be vigilant against small flaws that leave the door open to temptation and corruption.

Luckily for fun and variety, there are few out there that are "truly virtuous"; though many may be "good," many fewer are ardently so. Actually, the game usually notes most people as somewhere in the neutral zone, and there is plenty of room on the good side of neutral, so to speak. A person can have plenty of good habits and work hard to defend the cause of good, and have a few flaws tacked on, and end up either minorly good of neutral(good tendencies).