Unambiguous situations don't exist; everything has consequences and will negatively impact something while at the same time positively impacting something else.
This is a pretty dark form of moral relativism here. Your logic really appears to be that anything can be interpreted as evil in some relativistic sense, so every act is completely and unambiguously evil. Maybe one day he ate an apple. Did anyone stop to ask how the apple felt about being eaten? What if the apple didn't like being eaten? Does that make him a murderer? Who can be sure? Practically everyone has eaten an apple before. I guess that means no one is innocent. We're all evil.
This is my interpretation of your logic.
No, a father building a house for his family on an elven burial site is not a good act. That's deliberately desecrating the burial site and the elves probably wouldn't view that as something good.
I'll point out that in the context of this thread "good" means "not evil enough to kill". If in reality a Native American tribe objected to a family building a house on their ancestral burial grounds, and reacted by attempting to murder the family, then I'm confident we would all react with disgust to the actions being taken by the tribe. It's not a difficult moral judgement.
The original situation described is just a man building a house for his family. Looking at this information alone, is he doing a good thing? Absolutely yes.
Now you learn he's building the house on sacred elven burial ground. This is a new fact and it completely changes the scenario. Now, is he doing a good thing? Maybe.
Taken to an extreme, imagine he and his family are actually vampires. They drink human blood and kill humans for fun. Is he doing a good thing? Absolutely not.
However, you still can't just go around killing everyone just because you assume they're all secretly vampires. They are not evil until you learn that they are evil.
I think we should get rid of an alignment system. Usually it makes little sense to say somebody is good/evil/lawful/chaotic unless you look at some archetypical chars like the white knight or the killer who kills and tortures just for fun. Those chars are usually boring, but you can make good fun of them. ( Lets think of a Paladin who wants to help good people and kill bad people. There is a burning house and somebody screams for help. He runs into the burning house and saves this person. After saving her some people say that this person is a witch. All paladins know that witches are evil and must be burned alive. So he gathers some wood and burns her alive. She is also evil because she tricked him into saving her, so the paladin destroys her body as punishment after the fire killed her. What a good day, saved somebody, burned a witch and cut a betrayer to pieces.)
This reminds me of an odd situation in Baldur's Gate 2.
Fanatic - Look ye all upon this foul drow that we have bound before ye! A creature of evil and darkness, my brethren! A creature of foulness and deceit, bent only on our destruction! This creature has foolishly come amongst us, my brethren, thinking that we would be lax in our senses! Tell me what should be done with it!
Commoner - Burn it!
Noblewoman - Burn her!!
Commoner - Burn the drow!!
Fanatic - Aye, burn the elf! Her dark and fiendish kin rose up from their underground homes and killed my father and my brother! They are all evil, I tell you! All of them!
Fanatic - Then the drow shall burn! Gather 'round, my brethren, and witness the will of Beshaba triumph over foul evil!
Anomen - It seems a dark elf has been caught and is about to be put to the torch. Good. Such a fate is no less than the fiend deserves.
Viconia - You rivvin are mad! I have done nothing to any of you! I seek only to make my way without molestation! Why have you done this?! Why?!
Fanatic - Done nothing?! You are a drow elf, are you not?! That is as good a reason as any!
Fanatic - Ye shall be silent, evil one! The power of the Maid of Misrule will be demonstrated here today!
Nobleman - Aye! Burn her now!
Commoner - Burn her!
Viconia - No! Naul! Oloth plynn d'jail!
Fanatic - Spout your evil speech if ye must, drow, but prepare yourself for your journey into the next world! Beg for forgiveness, beg for salvation! And hope that the cleansing fire will save ye!!
Jaheira - I have no love for Drow, nor for this Drow in particular... but it seems that she has done nothing to deserve this fate other than simply be a Drow. This is not justice.
Viconia - Shar! My deliverance is in your hands! ...wait...I recognise you! Player! It is I! Viconia DeVir! You must remember! My life depends on it! Please, Player, I beg of you! Save me from these madmen!!
You see an elvish woman, a drow, tied to a stake. A mob of people stand near. The occasional shout of "Burn her!" comes from the crowd. Anger and fear cross the drow's countenance. You could cut her down if you wish but this shall surely anger the crowd.
Boldly, you walk up to the stake and cut the drow woman free. The armed men turn their ire upon you.
Viconia - Praise the goddss! My thanks for your timely intervention!
Fanatic - What are ye doing?! Why have ye interfered with the judgement of Beshaba?! Her will must be shown to the people!
Fanatic - Allies of the foul creature! Allies of the drow!!
Fanatic - This can never be allowed!! The drow dies!!
Noblewoman - Eeeek!
Commoner - Run for it!!
[Player slaughters the fanatics]
Viconia - I owe you my life, abbit...you have saved me once again. I did nothing to provoke their attack, I tell you! I was just passing through the city when the man guessed my identity under my hood.
[after she joins the party...]
Viconia's alignment: Neutral evil
The whole scenario made me feel really awkward. One of the key mechanics of D&D is good fights evil, so my understanding of D&D is that "evil" actually does mean
evil enough to kill. And yet she had done no evil to them, and she'd done no evil at all really. Later you learn from her backstory that she had done some evil a long time ago,
but it was pretty justified. Still she is characterised as evil by the mechanics of the game itself. It all felt pretty clumsy to me.
It's a contrast to a more nuanced presentation of morality, like Iorveth in the Witcher 2. This is genuine moral relativism.
They say all elves are beautiful, that they are born thus. In Iorveth's case someone set out to change this, marking his face with an ugly scar that the elf partially hid beneath a crimson headscarf. Iorveth was a living legend, the elusive leader of a Scoia'tael unit whose members gave no thought to laying down their arms and continued their war against humans. Stories of his deeds, of his deep hatred of dh'oine, painted him as more akin to a vengeful ghost than to an individual made of blood, bone and flesh. Certain sources claimed that Iorveth was the kingslayer's ally and thus involved in recent events, yet Geralt's first meeting with the elf brought few answers and ended with Scoia'tael archers laying down a deadly barrage. Indeed, it seemed at the time that the elf would only ever answer the witcher with arrows.
In the eyes of some people, like Loredo or Roche, Iorveth was a common criminal, his hands stained by the blood of innocents. Indeed, the list of those he had cut down in his "fight for freedom" could easily rival the number of ballads, romances and ditties in my repertoire.
The elf was certainly a dangerous individual. He was not, however, a bloodthirsty monster. Ever cautious and aware of the game he was playing, he jumped at the chance of testing Letho's loyalty, becoming Geralt's ally, at least temporarily.
Is he doing a good thing?
Yes and no.And in The Witcher 3, even monsters can be morally complex...
https://youtu.be/2hGylVl6290?t=7m00s
