Editing Stupid Good

:''" Ignoring what he's done in the past. Blindly, stupidly disregarding the entire graveyards he's filled, the thousands who have suffered, the friends he's crippled."''
:-- Jason Todd to Batman, nailing the exact point on why Stupid Good characters fuck things up for everyone else, because "morals".
'''Stupid Good''' is a term derived from the [[Dungeons & Dragons]] [[alignment]] system, but can easily be applied to [[character]]s in any [[role-playing game]] in fact, it can be applied to characters in any medium, or even real life for a specific way of playing a morally good character, usually a [[Paladin]] with a relatively even split between this and [[Lawful Stupid]].

==Definition==
Unfortunately, Stupid Good is considerably harder to define than Lawful Stupid, where the latter generally accepted to apply in situations where following the "Law" or pre-defined codes of conduct can lead a person/PC into morally dubious situations.

By contrast; the former would logically be applied to those who would perform good acts "no matter the cost", usually things like sparing the unarmed [[Big Bad Evil Guy|villain]] over and over again so that he can go on to commit more acts of evil in future, where a brief act of evil on the part of the good person ''(i.e., murdering the fucker)'' would create an overall better outcome. 
*This is often what differentiates '''Stupid Good''' from ''[[Lawful Stupid]]'' in that Stupidly Good characters have a marked tendency to get fooled by supposed acts of "redemption" and are more inclined to offer second chances rather than letting basic rationality take its course.

Generally though, this alignment will mostly depend on your [[GM]]'s outlook, since the above example is actually considered to be one of the prime examples of the "good" alignment. This has also been spoon-fed to us over years and years of early morning cartoons where the good guy can always be relied upon to do the right thing, even to a fault and where the villain ''always'' gets away to return "next time".

Note however that this nearly always applies to situations where choice becomes a factor, the above examples nearly always depend upon an unarmed/defeated opponent. The choice of what to do with the villain then becomes a moral question, which can be entirely separate from society's requirements on the lawful/chaos axis. ''(where handing him to the authorities may be the lawful thing to do.)''
The morality issue often gets thrown out of the window if the villain is slain during a difficult fight or through circumstance.

In this case examples of '''True''' Stupid Good would be a person attempting to spare the life of a villain even then, perhaps even refusing to cause them harm since they would classify causing pain, suffering and/or injury as an evil act regardless of the circumstance.

These are the PCs who can bring gaming groups problems, when they get into the nitty gritty about what actually is classed as evil, and their strict moral codes often require them to intervene on the actions of the party members. Though anyone who owns a copy of the '''Book of Exalted Deeds''' back in 3rd Edition D&D can find that this can be a legitimate (though often extreme) attitude towards goodness, but can find rules to accommodate these play-styles.

===Examples of Stupid Good===
*The '''Autobots''' particularly from the classic 80s cartoons. Almost incessantly "good" and stubborn in their refusals to do anything remotely bad. Seriously, in the whole run of the original series and the millions of years of war between them and the Decepticons, did they kill anyone?
**Optimus Prime can also be equally described as [[Lawful Stupid]], though the terms are not as mutually exclusive as the D&D alignments are.
*The '''Organians''' from the original series of [[Star Trek]] are peace lovers to the extreme, to the point in intervening in the Federation/Klingon War and stopping all fighting across the galaxy. Particularly in the expanded content where they refuse to get involved in Q-Wars threatening multiple dimensions of existence.
*Batman. Just...how many times did he let the Joker live, almost intentionally knowing he'd escape Arkham and kill many more innocents, and doing the whole dance over again? Oh yeah, because for some stupid reason, putting a Batarang through the psycho-clown's throat makes the Batman as bad as the Joker.  This also extends to other dangerous villains, including Penguin "kill all of Gotham's firstborn children in their sleep." 
*Ned Stark can both fit into Lawful Stupid and Stupid Good, as his penchant for mercy (he doesn't want Robert to murder Tommen and Myrcella in a fit of rage) ends up getting him executed and generally starting the major clusterfuck known as the War of the Five Kings.

==The darker side of goodness==
<blockquote>''"You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become a villain." ''</blockquote>

On the flip side of Stupid Good, there are those who attempt to justify whatever it is that they do so long as their characters create good outcomes. In essence as opposed to good '''actions''' "no matter the cost", the other side of stupid good is good '''consequences''' "no matter the cost". Generally those who circumvent moral problems with clever use of ethics and is therefore more often associated with Chaotic Good on the alignment scale ''(though not exclusively).''

This ''"ends justifies the means"'' approach is less like taking good actions to the point of situational absurdity and more like players using logic to create goodness out of absurd situations. 

An example of a dilemma surrounding this phenomenon is: Is it morally good to do something evil, to result in an even [[Greater Good]]? Such as killing an innocent to save the king/country/world/universe?

The '''Book of Exalted Deeds''' says that the above example is most definitely '''not''' a Good act, no matter the intention of the PC and treads the muddy Neutral ground at best, however not all RPGs use the [[D&D]] alignment system, but any RPG that involves some mechanical tracker of morality may inevitably encounter a player action which causes an awkward collective intake of breath, followed by the question of ''"[[This Just Happened|did you really just do that?]]"''.

This is dangerous ground for any potential [[GM]] and needs to be [[Rules Lawyer|decided]] upon firmly when it arises. While there are many examples of real-world applications of the line of thought historically and politically, they are controversial almost without exception. In roleplaying games; the end justifies the means approach can certainly be seen as upholding the "moral good", but if a GM allows attitudes like this to take root, savvy players may eventually find reasons to do anything and have essentially just become [[Murderhobo]]s with apparent moral authority, and it can force hard-alignment systems to lose their legitimacy.

If "Good" players start justifying why they are [[Imperium|seeking out and slaying whole villages]] of Orcs "just BECAUSE they are evil" or if they are committing acts of [[Alpha Legion|terrorism against an oppressive state]] even when that state system is perfectly codified and functional then a GM should probably think about dropping any alignment systems rather than attempt to enforce muddy and dubious decisions.

===Examples of "Good" done Stupidly===
* The [[Tau]] in 40k, though with particular reference to the harsher side of the [[Greater Good]] where they believe that people can be forcibly brought into harmony with one another. It's not terribly unreasonable given that pretty much everyone else in the setting is either insane, evil, or xenophobic (or all three) to the point where almost nobody gets along without a gun to their head.
*[[Konrad Curze]] - VERY VERY much so, despite the fact he [[Noblebright|brought crime and corruption on his world to near-zero, improving efficiency and bringing hope]] to his world, he was NOT a good person, no matter what he was attempting to argue.
*The '''Organians''' again; Though only in [[/v/|video games]] where they have given up the non-violent approach and decide to force everyone into peace by [[derp|declaring war on them]].
* Stannis Baratheon, from the show adaptation of A Song of Ice and Fire. He keeps on committing morally dubious and sometimes even downright villainous acts, such as sacrificing his own daughter to a fire god, in order to save Westeros from a bunch of evil elves, their zombie minions, and their Darth Maul lookalike leader; all at the behest of a crazed priestess who can't see that Stannis is NOT the chosen hero of yore, which she has fooled both herself and him into believing. In other words, he's a more well intentioned Macbeth who will end up with the same fate.
* Cortana, from the Halo franchise. Starts off as a Neutral Good character (her concern and care for John eclipsing her duty to humanity), but through a combination of torture at the hands of the Gravemind (Halo's biggest dick), her ongoing issues with Rampancy (aka AI alzheimers), living through the horror of the Human-Covenant War, and going through a state of near death, she develops a worldview that organics cannot be trusted to run affairs on their own, and becomes determined to become the Galaxy's version of Augustus (though she obviously lacks Augustus' political acumen), [[Tau|setting out to unify the galaxy under her rule and bring about a Pax Galactica, becoming the exact sort of tyrant that C.S Lewis claimed was the most oppressive]] (She views a few million lives lost due to her awakening gargantuan flying robots known as Guardians as a "necessary sacrifice").

[[Category:Gamer Slang]]