Good Can Get You Into A Lot Of Trouble

[Bartmanhomer]

Ok (D&D 3.5): Ok here's a situation where being good can get you into trouble. Imagine a Chaotic Good Male Elf Bard name Aidon put a sign on a Chaotic Good Male Half-Orc Barbarian name Krunk. Aidon put a sign on Krunk back saying "I hate Trolls because they're stupid" as a prank. One of the troll approach Krunk and the troll was offended by the sigh and start a fight with Krunk. After the horrible beating from the troll. Aidon confessed that he put the offensive sign and Krunk was angry at him. So have anyone ever been in that situation before?

[Kitten Champion]

What does that have to do with being Good?

[Bartmanhomer]

What does that have to do with being Good?

I just thought that was a good example.

[Kraynic]

What does that have to do with being Good?

Actually, if you play a good character and go around trying to make things better for the common folk of the land, I have found a good DM can come up with all sorts of rich and powerful people that can get ticked off at you. I've never had more assassins after me in a game than when I tried playing a very basic good character that cared about "the little" people.

[False God]

Being a jerk can certainly get you into trouble.

Wouldn't call that good.

[mucat]

I just thought that was a good example.

That doesn't answer Kitten's question: What has your example got to do with being good?

[Lord Raziere]

Actually, if you play a good character and go around trying to make things better for the common folk of the land, I have found a good DM can come up with all sorts of rich and powerful people that can get ticked off at you. I've never had more assassins after me in a game than when I tried playing a very basic good character that cared about "the little" people.

killing a king for being a tyrant?
Noble: if they are willing to kill them, they are willing to kill me, so I have to kill them first.

Defend village from orcs?
Noble: I wasn't there to defend them, which makes me look bad and thus threat to my rule, I need to get rid of this adventurer so that they don't prefer them over me

Donate to the poor?
Noble: giving them hope for anything other than becoming my servant? I can't have that.

Insisting upon actually following the letter of the law of something?
Noble: Darn, someone other than me knows how the rules work around here, I can't let that continue, if they can argue against me, I can't make any rule I want while I'm far away from any other figure of authority.

rescuing a lady from an arranged loveless marriage?
noble: hey that was for an alliance I needed, come back with that vital piece to this political/economical deal that will give me more power

and so on and so forth. even a paladin can get in trouble for doing these things, medieval nobility and wealth turns out aren't paragons of law OR good, nor are the rules they support anything like the law we have today. they are in fact, quite rough, varying from noble to noble and full of precedent and ad-hoc rulings than actual rules.

[Kaptin Keen]

I think the example is meant to show - here's a thing you might do, as a good character, that wouldn't push your alignment to evil, but still might result in serious trouble.

I'm just not sure the example is as innocent as it looks. A sign provoking trolls is only really relevant in a troll-rich environment. So you're putting someone into grave danger, just to laugh at them, and I doubt that's really compatible with a Good alignment. So it's not a harmless prank, it's closer to premeditated manslaughter by proxy.

[Kardwill]

I just thought that was a good example.

That's actually a pretty bad example. It has nothing to do with being good : It just shows that being a stupid jerk (or hanging out with a stupid jerk) is dangerous.

As the others have said, being good can and will bring you trouble, because it means you're less likely to choose the path of less resistance and just mind your own business when you're facing an injustice. A good character will care, and try to make things better, and bad guys won't like it. It's the reason I like to play good characters : They live interesting (although sometimes short) lives :)

[Berenger]

I just thought that was a good example.

I'm afraid it isn't. Think about it: why wouldn't a chaotic neutral or chaotic evil character act the same way?

It is a good example of certain brands of chaotic, though. Depending on the motivation and expected outcome of the action it is either of the "childish and dangerously irresponsible" or "jerkish and malicious" variety.

[ezekielraiden]

Bartmanhomer, if you'd like a suggestion for something I consider a good example of acting entirely consistent with the Good alignment, but which would likely "get you into trouble," consider the following:

Bertrand the Paladin (LG) and Ernest the Rogue (CG) are old friends who adventure in a party together. The party comes to a new town, spends a night at the inn, and goes about looking for good deeds to do and paying jobs to take. Along the way, they meet a poor old woman and her three grandchildren living in squalid conditions because, with all of the corruption in the city's economy, they can barely afford to pay their mortgage debts, spending some nights hungry. The Rogue wants to help because it's wrong for people to take advantage of the poor, the elderly, and children like this, regardless of whether it's "legal"; the Paladin is just as determined to fix this injustice, but sees it as either needing the law to actually take seriously its responsibilities, or needing to be fixed so that it works correctly. Their party goes on an adventure full of wacky hijinks, which ends up revealing that the lady mayor has had an "arragement" with local organized crime, allowing them extralegal leeway for their family men and letting them squeeze money out of people through illegal loans, as long as they keep their operations clean and neat, avoid killing, and send kickbacks to the mayor and the nobility who support her. She is summarily stripped of office by the royal constabulary, and she, many of her cronies, and some of the top crime lords are arrested and set for trial when the royal circuit judge arrives later that week. Thing is? Both the lady (ex-)mayor's supporters and the crime families have far too big a network to capture them all--and many have ties to powerful members if the nobility, even up to the King's council. The party has just made themselves more than a nuisance, they are a threat to the ongoing plans of the Duke of Westhaven to undermine existing institutions in an ongoing bid to usurp the throne (as his grandfather was the second son of the then-reigning queen). Now the party has a real enemy in a high position, and lots of enemies in middle and low positions (the crime families), and they've disrupted the criminal underworld to such an extent that it will be years before a new equilibrium is reached.

They've earned a LOT of trouble. But they earned it by doing something genuinely good, fighting against evil and oppression. Something that a neutral character might not care that much about (there was no real reward for their deeds, beyond the joy of an elderly woman and her small grandchildren, and a few other townsfolk), and an evil character almost certainly wouldn't have (if anything, an Evil character would probably have tried to use it as blackmail to gain influence within the criminal hierarchy.)

[Bartmanhomer]

That doesn't answer Kitten's question: What has your example got to do with being good?

Because the elf is Chaotic Good.

[noob]

Because the elf is Chaotic Good.

But the action was not good and a puppy kicking extra evil villain that follows all the laws would have jumped on the opportunity to do that prank if they knew it was possible to cause hatred that way.

[Bartmanhomer]

But the action was not good and a puppy kicking extra evil villain that follows all the laws would have jumped on the opportunity to do that prank if they knew it was possible to cause hatred that way.

Ok, I didn't think this though about it.

[Berenger]

Because the elf is Chaotic Good.

Yes, but him being good isn't crucial to the described action. You might as well conclude that Elves Can Get You Into A Lot Of Trouble or that Bards Can Get You Into A Lot Of Trouble or that Guys Named Aidon Can Get You Into A Lot Of Trouble.

[Studoku]

Bards Can Get You Into A Lot Of Trouble

That one's well known.

[Berenger]

That one's well known.

...fair point.

[Jophiel]

I'm afraid it isn't. Think about it: why wouldn't a chaotic neutral or chaotic evil character act the same way?

A CN character may not admit to fault ("I dunno") and a CE character would certainly try to pin fault on someone else if possible ("I think it was that guy in the corner, go beat him up!"). A CG character, as in the example, would admit fault and take the consequences.

The "Good" part wasn't the prank, it was taking responsibility for a prank gone wrong that led to harm. I'd assume the CG character didn't intend harm when he hung the sign and thought it would just lead to laughs. Lacking in wisdom, perhaps, but not of ill intent.

[Jay R]

It wasn’t a Good action. It was a Neutral action if there are no trolls around, or a mildly Evil action if there are.

It wouldn’t by itself, change his alignment, but the action was opposed to his alignment, or, at best, irrelevant to it. It certainly wasn’t indicative of, or consistent with, being Good.

[Bartmanhomer]

Bartmanhomer, if you'd like a suggestion for something I consider a good example of acting entirely consistent with the Good alignment, but which would likely "get you into trouble," consider the following:

Bertrand the Paladin (LG) and Ernest the Rogue (CG) are old friends who adventure in a party together. The party comes to a new town, spends a night at the inn, and goes about looking for good deeds to do and paying jobs to take. Along the way, they meet a poor old woman and her three grandchildren living in squalid conditions because, with all of the corruption in the city's economy, they can barely afford to pay their mortgage debts, spending some nights hungry. The Rogue wants to help because it's wrong for people to take advantage of the poor, the elderly, and children like this, regardless of whether it's "legal"; the Paladin is just as determined to fix this injustice, but sees it as either needing the law to actually take seriously its responsibilities, or needing to be fixed so that it works correctly. Their party goes on an adventure full of wacky hijinks, which ends up revealing that the lady mayor has had an "arrangement" with local organized crime, allowing them extralegal leeway for their family men and letting them squeeze money out of people through illegal loans, as long as they keep their operations clean and neat, avoid killing, and send kickbacks to the mayor and the nobility who support her. She is summarily stripped of office by the royal constabulary, and she, many of her cronies, and some of the top crime lords are arrested and sent for trial when the royal circuit judge arrives later that week. Thing is? Both the lady (ex-)mayor's supporters and the crime families have far too big a network to capture them all--and many have ties to powerful members of the nobility, even up to the King's council. The party has just made themselves more than a nuisance, they are a threat to the ongoing plans of the Duke of Westhaven to undermine existing institutions in an ongoing bid to usurp the throne (as his grandfather was the second son of the then-reigning queen). Now the party has a real enemy in a high position, and lots of enemies in middle and low positions (the crime families), and they've disrupted the criminal underworld to such an extent that it will be years before a new equilibrium is reached.

They've earned a LOT of trouble. But they earned it by doing something genuinely good, fighting against evil and oppression. Something that a neutral character might not care that much about (there was no real reward for their deeds, beyond the joy of an elderly woman and her small grandchildren, and a few other townsfolk), and an evil character almost certainly wouldn't have (if anything, an Evil character would probably have tried to use it as blackmail to gain influence within the criminal hierarchy.)

Your example is better than mine, I'll give you that.

[Jophiel]

It wasn’t a Good action. It was a Neutral action if there are no trolls around, or a mildly Evil action if there are.

It would only be evil if it was done with malice and the hope of getting the other guy beat up. Doing something that proves to be a poorly thought out idea isn't evil (or good, or neutral), it's just a thing. Most actions don't really qualify for an alignment call.

On the other hand, recognizing that your actions hurt someone and willingly taking the blame and consequences is a good action.

[False God]

The "Good" part wasn't the prank, it was taking responsibility for a prank gone wrong that led to harm. I'd assume the CG character didn't intend harm when he hung the sign and thought it would just lead to laughs. Lacking in wisdom, perhaps, but not of ill intent.

Maybe, but the trouble wouldn't have occurred if they hadn't pulled the prank in the first place. Sure, they apologized, which may or may not be good depending on the sincerity and plausibility. Taking responsibility for your actions doesn't make you good. It's learning from your misdeeds/mistakes and not repeating them that makes you good. An evil person may take responsibility and apologize because it ensures the victim continues to be loyal toward them and diffuses the situation. A neutral person might apologize and take responsibility because they know the apology holds meaning to the victim, but holds no meaning to the neutral person saying it.

I mean what, Krunk got his butt whooped by the prank and Aidon had to say "sorry bro"? Big deal. If Aidon suffers no punishment or doesn't have to make any amends, what's to stop him from doing it again? He just learned he can "prank" others and say "sorry" and everything will be hunky-dory.

[Kitten Champion]

Maybe, but the trouble wouldn't have occurred if they hadn't pulled the prank in the first place. Sure, they apologized, which may or may not be good depending on the sincerity and plausibility. Taking responsibility for your actions doesn't make you good. It's learning from your misdeeds/mistakes and not repeating them that makes you good. An evil person may take responsibility and apologize because it ensures the victim continues to be loyal toward them and diffuses the situation. A neutral person might apologize and take responsibility because they know the apology holds meaning to the victim, but holds no meaning to the neutral person saying it.

I mean what, Krunk got his butt whooped by the prank and Aidon had to say "sorry bro"? Big deal. If Aidon suffers no punishment or doesn't have to make any amends, what's to stop him from doing it again? He just learned he can "prank" others and say "sorry" and everything will be hunky-dory.

Technically no apology was issued, this theoretical character admitted culpability for his actions and nothing more. I would say that has shades of Lawfulness - not Good or Evil - and that regardless the primary source of "Trouble" here was that he was a **** to his companion in the first place, not his specific standing in D&D cosmology.

Generally though, I'm not inclined to view a PC's every thought and action through the prism of D&D alignment just because they have one written on their sheet. PC's are supposed to represent a sentient Creature at the end of the day with multifaceted personalities and not nine immutable moral paradigms. To me, alignment is more about one's overarching motivations and core moral standards than whether you've properly sorted the trash or tipped your waitress. Pulling a weird and dumb prank is just pulling a weird and dumb prank unless it goes to such extremes that it becomes malicious sadism.

[Jophiel]

Taking responsibility for your actions doesn't make you good. It's learning from your misdeeds/mistakes and not repeating them that makes you good.

No, learning from your mistakes makes you experienced or wise. The morality comes from sincerely admitting wrong even when it would be easier/beneficial to do otherwise.

[Florian]

I just thought that was a good example.

As usual, it leaves the impression that you don't have any clue about what alignments are and how they work.

[Bartmanhomer]

As usual, it leaves the impression that you don't have any clue about what alignments are and how they work.

I've been playing D&D 3.5 for quite a while so I do have a clue of what alignments are and how they work.

[Wraith]

If I were in a generous mood - ie, I hadn't just been beaten up by a troll - I might admit that it was a Good act to admit your mistake and apologise, even though you knew that Krunk was going to be mad at you and possibly even retaliate. You tell him anyway and accept the consequences, because it's the right thing to do.

Pulling a harmless prank on a comrade isn't Evil, it's just not particularly Lawful. A harmless prank that gets out of hand and unintentionally causes harm also isn't Evil, it's just a mistake.

Good characters can make mistakes and still be Good, provided that they acknowledge the mistake, take responsibility and try to make reparations. A Neutral character might shrug it off and deny responsibility, and an Evil one would revel in the harm they have caused.

Just don't make a habit out of trying to embarrass your companions, and you should be fine.

[AMFV]

killing a king for being a tyrant?
Noble: if they are willing to kill them, they are willing to kill me, so I have to kill them first.

Or it turns out that tyrants are also jerks to the nobles who may not be legally able to remove them, so they may love you for that rather than trying to kill you. Also the nobles don't likely think of themselves as tyrants and may not consider this a threat.

Defend village from orcs?
Noble: I wasn't there to defend them, which makes me look bad and thus threat to my rule, I need to get rid of this adventurer so that they don't prefer them over me

Or frame it so that they were only able to defend the village because I was there, or pay them for their services so that looks like the way I handled the problem.

Donate to the poor?
Noble: giving them hope for anything other than becoming my servant? I can't have that.

Or you might want that, if they're hopeful then they'll work harder, and you can also get knights and vassals of better quality if you do that. Also not all nobles are exclusively self centered.

Insisting upon actually following the letter of the law of something?
Noble: Darn, someone other than me knows how the rules work around here, I can't let that continue, if they can argue against me, I can't make any rule I want while I'm far away from any other figure of authority.

This doesn't bother me because I'm not just making arbitrary rules, only the ones I actually am allowed to make.

rescuing a lady from an arranged loveless marriage?
noble: hey that was for an alliance I needed, come back with that vital piece to this political/economical deal that will give me more power

This one isn't a question of good or law really, so I'm not actually going to address it.

and so on and so forth. even a paladin can get in trouble for doing these things, medieval nobility and wealth turns out aren't paragons of law OR good, nor are the rules they support anything like the law we have today. they are in fact, quite rough, varying from noble to noble and full of precedent and ad-hoc rulings than actual rules.

Medieval nobles varied from noble to noble as to whether they were paragons of law and good. The same as people do today. Paladins might get into trouble with one noble and be lauded by another.

[a_flemish_guy]

so a scenario: you are jonathan freeguy, CG rogue, one day before you get out of town to fight the evil lich zangarax, who's plan to dominate all life is entering it's final stages, you enter the general store and find 2 ruffians extorting the shop owner for protection money in the name of the local crime syndicate
naturally you beat the snot out of them since it's the good thing to do

sure, we can pretend that it's a pure coincidence that if you return in triumph that the shopkeeper was hanged and his store burned or that you're not at fault for the evils of the crime syndicate since everyone has free will but to me this strikes as throwing a rock at the wasp-hive near the weelchair-bound allergic man and walking away, sure the wasps could have chosen not to sting him but we all know it doesn't work that way

also how would the situation change if it was reginald goodheart, LG palladin?

[Lord Raziere]

Or it turns out that tyrants are also jerks to the nobles who may not be legally able to remove them, so they may love you for that rather than trying to kill you. Also the nobles don't likely think of themselves as tyrants and may not consider this a threat.

*snip*

none of your examples invalidate my examples. this is thread about how good can get you INTO trouble. reasons why it might not, are irrelevant to the thread and in fact are antithetical to the point.