What alignment is 'For the greater Good'?

[woodlandkammao]

We all know the story, BBEG is preparing WMD that will wipe country/city/demographic/percentage of population off the map. Hero confronts him, BBEG reveals that he thinks it's the right thing to do because somewhere down the line they predict that it will save/improve the lives of everyone else. It's in books, movies, games. Last time I saw it was just last week when it was Dr Doom's motive in Fant4stic (In the name of all that you hold dear, don't see it, please).

But I got thinking, is this CG, N, LN, or LE? I could make arguments for any. Doing something extremely unconventional and controversial because you think it is right? Definition of Chaotic Good. doing unspeakable acts in adherence to your moral code? Lawful evil, right there. Doing something without compassion because it must apparently be done? Lawful neutral.

I honestly can't pick one.

[woodlandkammao]

You know, like this.

[Kamai]

To me, this still sounds like LE or NE, depending on how it lies in relation, especially if it's off an educated guess. Good definitely does not say "It's worth sacrificing these lives", especially when using something like a WMD. If someone absolutely has to die, a good person is going to figure out who, and do it in a way to impact as few others as possible. Otherwise, they'd hit why these people are so dangerous, whether it would be expansionist policies, disarming their WMD, or ridding whatever disease was forming in their bodies.

While this could be on the very south end of neutral/north end of evil, that's only acceptable if they are sure that this killing would have the intended result. Even then, I'd expect a lot of work towards redemption that may ultimately never succeed.

Making the world a better place is outside of most Chaotic Evil personalities, with them caring just for their own. If they planned, they'd think first of how to take advantage of the chaos that's going to happen to make their lot better. I'd expect something like a partial destruction or just preparing their holdings against whatever's going to happen over solving the problem directly. All of this is what narrows it down to LE or NE for me, and I don't think I could narrow it down further.

[Keltest]

"for the greater good" can cover any alignment. It describes a justification for behavior, not the behavior itself. A paladin choosing to thwart a necromancer raising an army to take over a nation instead of saving an orphan stuck in a burning tree is choosing the greater good (assuming the two actions are mutually exclusive for some reason). That same necromancer could be taking over the nation "for the greater good" by genuinely believing that they are the only person able to seize power who could wield it appropriately. Slaughtering the people would still be an evil act, even if the necromancer then brings the nation to prosperity.

[Red Fel]

As others have mentioned, almost anything but Good. And it's usually Lawful, to boot.

Good is defined by what it won't do. That there are Lines One Does Not Cross. To compromise on this, to accept that there are times when it's okay to cross those lines, is to give up on moral conviction. Context does not make a wicked act noble; it's still wicked, even if you can offer justification.

Similarly, dedication to order, to structure, to that kind of ideal is more often Lawful than anything else. It's often coupled with a sense of superiority, an ideal that "Things will be better with me in charge." Even if it's for the noblest of reasons, it's tyrannical, which is generally seen as Lawful-leaning.

In short, you're looking at the LE/LN corner of the grid.

[DigoDragon]

"for the greater good" can cover any alignment. It describes a justification for behavior, not the behavior itself.

I agree with Keltest. Most (if not all) alignments can have a 'For the the greater good' justification. A Chaotic Good character can willingly break a bunch of laws, potentially hurting bystanders, if it means catching a dangerous serial killer. It's all in the angle of the justification.

[Keltest]

Exactly. The reason "for the greater good" is so commonly associated with evil is because its a slippery slope. It becomes very easy to start justifying worse and worse with the assumption that if everything goes according to plan, the end results will be worth it.

That chaotic good character may start actively putting civilians in harms way to catch the serial killer, for example, because its easier than the methods that would remove collateral damage. And then the character becomes a serial killer to prompt the authorities to get their act together so it doesn't take a vigilante like him to deal with it.

[SMWallace]

The Well-Intentioned Extremist archetype is some flavor of Evil, according to the Book of Vile Darkness. Keep in mind this can actually apply just fine to a Chaotic Evil character; given that neither the attribute of Chaos nor the attribute of Evil demand being an insane baby-eater who can't think of anything outside his personal fulfillment, it's interesting that most people come to that conclusion about the combination. But yeah, pretty much any Evil.

Of course, it's not too hard to make the jump to Neutral if you change the "extremist" part of that. Sacrificing a thousand souls to save the mortal realm is Well-Intentioned Extremism, and Evil; the same applies to the people who conquer, brutalize, and oppress everybody with the goal of taking over everything and (eventually) turning the world into a peaceful utopia (once it's all, y'know, united). On the other hand, you can absolutely oppose and even kill the Good heroes who ignored or didn't trust your attempts to inform them that their current course of action will result not in the world's salvation but its destruction, and not fall to Evil for it (though it's miles better if you can manage to stop them without killing them). That's "sorry, you have to die for the greater good," but, well, they left you no choice and it was their own fault even though it actually really isn't their fault.

[woodlandkammao]

I like this idea of CG being a slippery slope that villains start on. Actually, having just played Borderlands The Pre Sequel, it puts Handsome Jack's story into RPG definable terms

[Milodiah]

I think the term here is "Tau".

[Segev]

Generally speaking, CG is less characterized by breaking laws that protect people for expediency's sake, and more by breaking rules and laws and traditions when they feel the purpose behind said laws/rules/traditions is not being served by obedience to them.

It's not a CG vigilante who drives recklessly the wrong way down a one-way street through a school zone while kids are running across it to catch a bad guy. It's the CG vigilante who drives the wrong way down the empty one-way street to catch the bad guy.

(Example is pat and exaggerated to make a point. Even most LN types will break simple traffic laws when nobody would be hurt for something as important as "stopping the bad guy.")

[DaedalusMkV]

The only thing I'll disagree with from the above is the assertion that this attitude is usually Lawful; it leans to no particular side of the Law/Chaos axis. You could just as easily have an Anarchist who believes that central authority is the source of all evil and therefore sets out to eradicate it (Chaotic Evil, likely, maybe Chaotic Neutral if restrained enough) as a dictator who believes that the only thing between their nation and absolute destruction at the hands of their neighbors is intense militarism and harsh rule of law (Lawful Evil). Being convinced you're doing the right thing is common to just about everyone, across just about every alignment. From the noble thief who steals from the cruel King to feed the poor to the horrible tyrant defending his people from an invasion by a great empire by means of impaling whole armies on stakes at his borders to the mystic who believes wholeheartedly in the perfect balance of all opposing forces, almost everyone has a good justification for what they're doing, regardless of how deluded they are about it.

[Loxagn]

The problem is, from a psychological standpoint, there is no such thing as 'Evil'. Only the mentally ill will usually set out intending to do Evil for the sake of Evil. It is a terrifying fact that your average person can justify nearly any usually abominable act with 'the greater good'. It is justification, a foisting off of responsibility for one's own actions to ease one's own conscience, and we are rather unsettlingly good at it.

Substitute 'the greater good' for anything you like.

I was just following orders.
Think of how many lives would be saved.
I had to do something.

All of the greatest atrocities in history were committed by people who honestly, truly believed they were doing the right thing. That the 'greater good' meant that in the end, it would all be worth it. The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Holocaust... Certainly there must have been some people who participated because of some misplaced affection for unspeakable crimes against their fellow man, but by and large the worst of it was committed by 'misguided' people who believed themselves to be right.

In that way, 'For the Greater Good' is truly, in my opinion, an Evil sentiment. Intentions don't matter, only the actions themselves do, and for that reason I think justified Evil is by far the most vile variety. After all, Evil for the sake of Evil kicks puppies and steals candy from babies whilst twirling its moustache and cackling. Evil for the sake of Good goes out hoping to save a few people and winds up committing genocide along the way, never realizing that what they've done is the wrong thing.

[Segev]

There is a form of Evil that is not "for the greater good."

"It's my RIGHT."

"I am OWED this."

"You don't matter/you are lesser than me."

These attitudes lead to evil because they are entitlement mindsets which place your minor convenience above the well-being of others. They recognize privileges of yours ahead of rights of others.

Not every Evil person is an ideologue who is justifying something as "right." Sometimes, they're just selfish jerks who don't think it matters if you suffer as long as they get what they want.

And sometimes, they really get off on your suffering. "The strong win" and "Might makes right" are variants of that core philosophy.

[Brookshw]

I think the term here is "Tau".

I was thinking the same thing.

By default I put it to LN but by no means is that alignment the sole province of such an outlook. For the greater good presumably describes a willingness to impugne (I'm sure I misspelled that) upon the individual good, or rather you're willing to accept non-good actions if the larger repercussions are good. If that includes a willingness to inflict evil in that, well then you've tilted into evil. If you're only willing to accept certain degrees of non-good for the greater good, probably a neutral bent. The L/C alignment does not necessarily play into it but, in my mind, greater good implies a collective organizational approach far more likely and common in the lawful end of the spectrum.

[Wardog]

"for the greater good" can cover any alignment. It describes a justification for behavior, not the behavior itself. A paladin choosing to thwart a necromancer raising an army to take over a nation instead of saving an orphan stuck in a burning tree is choosing the greater good (assuming the two actions are mutually exclusive for some reason)

Or indeed, a paladin choosing to thwart a necromancer raising an army to take over a nation, full stop. After all, thwarting the necromancer will probably involve harming him in some way, but this is considered acceptable for the greater good of stopping the harm he would cause.

Ditto for any society with compulsive laws, punishments, or use of force. Anything society other than a voluntary association of hippie pacifists will involve or require some level of doing things to people that they don't want done to them, or compelling them to do things they don't want to do, which is justified on the grounds that it serves the greater good, or makes things better overall. Just to be clear: I'm not making an anarchist argument that therefore, laws are bad. Rather, that the common claim that '"for the greater good"/"the lesser evil" is inherently evil' is a oversimplification.

[Mastikator]

The "Greater Good" has become such a cliche that anything done in the greater good is automatically assumed to not actually be good. I think it's time to look at this more closely.

You can actually do stuff for the greater good, have good intentions and succeed without doing evil in the process. It's hard, but it's not categorically impossible. And the alternative is what, not having good intentions? How can you be good at all if you don't at least have good intentions.

Being clumsy, negligent or overzealous can certainly make your good intentions for nothing, but that's not your intentions' fault. You can be clumsy, negligent or overzealous and have selfish goals, or outright hostile goals. An overzealous selfish person is certainly worse than a overzealous good person.

The only way "the greater good" isn't a prerequisite for being good is when your definition "good" is one that is hostile to the wellbeing of everyone else. Wellbeing being as broadly defined as possible (if you think this argument is missing some nuance, assume it's included in the term "wellbeing" in a self consistent/maximally fair compromise way).

So I'm gonna disagree with everyone in this thread. Good is the only alignment that is for the greater good. If you're neutral then you're just not for the greater good by any good definition of good. And if you're evil, then game over.

Greater good = good and only good

[Segev]

Generally speaking, the philosophy behind use of force to stop people from causing harm and punitive measures taken against miscreants is not "for the greater good." It is that those who seek to violate the rights of others give up their rights. Thieves give up their right to freedom, having abused it to steal. Batterers give up their right to be free from violence upon their person.

It isn't "for the greater good" so much as "you made your bed, now lie in it."

[Millstone85]

I am under the impression that games using the Law-Chaos/Good-Evil axes are full of characters operating on self-avowed evil, be it "gotta rule 'em all", "nothing personal" or "your tears are delicious". This goes to the point where entire religions, civilizations and realities are officially built on such evils.

That's why I think alignment is about intentions and so-called realistic villains do not belong anywhere near LE, NE or CE.

[Keltest]

I am under the impression that games using the Law-Chaos/Good-Evil axes are full of characters operating on self-avowed evil, be it "gotta rule 'em all", "nothing personal" or "your tears are delicious". This goes to the point where entire religions, civilizations and realities are officially built on such evils.

That's why I think alignment is about intentions and so-called realistic villains do not belong anywhere near LE, NE or CE.

As a general rule, in order to be classified as a villain (as opposed to an antagonist) you have to do something evil. Realistic villains can absolutely be evil. All that is really required is a lack of concern over the well being of others.

[Amphetryon]

As others have mentioned, almost anything but Good. And it's usually Lawful, to boot.

Good is defined by what it won't do. That there are Lines One Does Not Cross. To compromise on this, to accept that there are times when it's okay to cross those lines, is to give up on moral conviction. Context does not make a wicked act noble; it's still wicked, even if you can offer justification.

Similarly, dedication to order, to structure, to that kind of ideal is more often Lawful than anything else. It's often coupled with a sense of superiority, an ideal that "Things will be better with me in charge." Even if it's for the noblest of reasons, it's tyrannical, which is generally seen as Lawful-leaning.

In short, you're looking at the LE/LN corner of the grid.

As I read it, this argument says that the old Star Trek mantra "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)" is "almost anything but Good." Is that your intention?

[Millstone85]

As a general rule, in order to be classified as a villain (as opposed to an antagonist) you have to do something evil. Realistic villains can absolutely be evil. All that is really required is a lack of concern over the well being of others.

But as discussed in this thread, this "lack of concern over the well being of others" would realistically be justified, including to oneself, by others having it coming on account of their own offenses, or being dirt to begin with, or being a necessary sacrifice so that more others can be saved, or being out of reach, or... It becomes a debate on whether these are comforting lies or unpleasant truths.

*to Red Fel* As I read it, this argument says that the old Star Trek mantra "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)" is "almost anything but Good." Is that your intention?

Some would call it a dictate of the majority. Spock had it easy because he was the one in this scenario.

[Keltest]

But as discussed in this thread, this "lack of concern over the well being of others" would realistically be justified, including to oneself, by others having it coming on account of their own offenses, or being dirt to begin with, or being a necessary sacrifice so that more others can be saved, or being out of reach, or... It becomes a debate on whether these are comforting lies or unpleasant truths.

Being justified is not the same thing as being Good. That's where the phrase "necessary evil" comes from. "Lesser of two evils" also comes to mind. You are doing something evil because the alternative would be worse.

[Millstone85]

Being justified is not the same thing as being Good.

Except it totally is. Being justified is doing what is just.

That's where the phrase "necessary evil" comes from. "Lesser of two evils" also comes to mind. You are doing something evil because the alternative would be worse.

This is what happens when all alternatives are evils and you are not evil. If you were, you wouldn't care about which alternative is worse, or you would choose that one on purpose.

[Red Fel]

As I read it, this argument says that the old Star Trek mantra "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)" is "almost anything but Good." Is that your intention?

It depends. The saying suggests that it is acceptable to sacrifice the needs of the few (or the one) in favor of those of the many. "Needs" may occasionally be synonymous with "property," "health," "safety," or even "life."

Generally speaking, making a sacrifice of others is a non-Good thing to do.

Some would call it a dictate of the majority. Spock had it easy because he was the one in this scenario.

This is the exception. When the "needs of the many" quote is applied to justify one's own sacrifice, it is a noble and virtuous sacrifice. A person making such a sacrifice is the definition of selflessness - he is literally putting the needs of others before his own. That's Good.

But invert it. Say instead that the person saying this, Person A, is telling another person, Person B, why B must die for the greater good. A is not making the sacrifice; he is demanding it of B. That is a non-Good position.

When one makes a sacrifice of himself, it is generally a noble, Good act. When one makes a sacrifice of others, even if it is for the greater good, that tends to be non-Good.

Mind you, there are gray areas. For example, a commander ordering the dispatch of his soldiers on a mission on which many of them will probably die, for the protection of the country. A dispatcher sending out firefighters or emergency rescue workers into an active disaster area. These are situations in which the sacrifice is part of the job; it is a necessary aspect of what they do. But outside of these scenarios, a Good character doesn't decide to make sacrifices of others. Not their wealth, not their happiness, not their lives.

[Keltest]

Except it totally is. Being justified is doing what is just.

This is what happens when all alternatives are evils and you are not evil. If you were, you wouldn't care about which alternative is worse, or you would choose that one on purpose.

Heres a scenario for you then. Theres is a massive threat that would destroy everyone. The nature of the threat doesn't really matter, but it can be fought if the people stop fighting each other so one of the larger powers can devote all their attention to it.

One warlord solves this problem by assembling a massive army and conquering all the nations threatened by this apocalypse. There is a massive loss of life, but the warlord does have the ability to repulse the threat by the end of his campaign. The warlord did not attempt or consider alternate means of removing any lesser threats to his army, but neither did he revel or enjoy the carnage he caused.

Is he evil? Is he Good? Why?

[KillianHawkeye]

I'm not going to comment on the Law/Chaos axis, as that will generally be determined by other factors.

The problem with "For the Greater Good" is that it is generally used as a justification for choosing "The Lesser of Two Evils." If it really is between one Good and another Good, then that is (as they say) all well and good, but when used in the more typical sense of justifying Evil actions because they result in a Good outcome... well that's just another way of saying "The Ends Justify the Means" and D&D Good is totally against that.

The way that D&D handles it, the lesser of two Evils is still Evil. "Necessary Evil" is still Evil. You can sell your soul to the devil to save the world, but you're still going to Hell, and that's true whether it's the literal kind of soul selling or if it's done a little at a time with lesser Evil after lesser Evil.

If you're somebody that believes that Good ends justify Evil means, then you're the kind of person that's willing (whether you realize it or not) to sacrifice your own soul to save others. You're willing to become a monster in order to make the world a better place, and when your actions are revealed to the real, honest, goody-two-shoes of the world they will be appalled by what you have done regardless of how many lives have also saved or evils you have stopped.

[Millstone85]

Heres a scenario for you then. Theres is a massive threat that would destroy everyone. The nature of the threat doesn't really matter, but it can be fought if the people stop fighting each other so one of the larger powers can devote all their attention to it.

One warlord solves this problem by assembling a massive army and conquering all the nations threatened by this apocalypse. There is a massive loss of life, but the warlord does have the ability to repulse the threat by the end of his campaign. The warlord did not attempt or consider alternate means of removing any lesser threats to his army, but neither did he revel or enjoy the carnage he caused.

Is he evil? Is he Good? Why?

We were talking about alternatives and lesser evils.
You describe me a warlord who "did not attempt or consider alternate means".
Seriously?

[Keltest]

Youre the one who claimed that anyone who actually did something for the greater good is Good (or at least not evil).

The alternative in the Warlord scenario would be for him to try something that either would not guarantee success or is outright inaction.

[Red Fel]

As others have said, the lesser of two Evils is still Evil.

So you prevented an apocalypse. Good for you. You also directed the deaths of a lot of innocents.

Feel guilty? That's sweet. Doesn't undo the death. Saved the world? Awesome. Doesn't undo the death. New age of peace? Fantastic. It was built on the broken corpses of people who did nothing to deserve it.

The fact that something led to a good result doesn't excuse bad actions. That's the point.

Trying a third option isn't guaranteed, it's true. It could be useless. But choosing to do Evil with a high rate of success, as opposed to Good with a low or unknown rate of success, doesn't change the fact that you've chosen Evil. You chose it because it's expedient. Because it's easier, because it's more likely to work, because whatever - you made the choice. That's the point.

That's not to say the outcome is a bad one. Obviously, world saved from destruction, net positive. But the person who chose Evil to make this happen is an Evil person, or at the very least a decidedly non-Good person. That's not even a question.