When The Moral Compass Goes Haywire
When I first began playing Dungeons & Dragons at the tender age of eight, I was fascinated by the alignment chart in the blue Basic Set rulebook. I did not understand it. I asked my father to explain it to me, but not being a gamer, he was unable to shed much illumination on the subject. Now, a little over twenty-four years later, I find I still have not received an explanation of the D&D alignment system to entirely satisfy my curiosity.
The Trouble With D&D Alignments
When I first began playing Dungeons & Dragons at the tender age of eight, I was fascinated by the alignment chart in the blue Basic Set rulebook. I did not understand it. I asked my father to explain it to me, but not being a gamer, he was unable to shed much illumination on the subject. Now, a little over twenty-four years later, I find I still have not received an explanation of the D&D alignment system to entirely satisfy my curiosity.
I have spoken to many people and have had many discussions and arguments on the subject. What frustrates me most about the D&D alignment system is that experienced gamers seem to have no better handle on it than the greenest newbies.
I read Scorpio's "Alignment Refinement" article, and I found myself shaking my head in disagreement. The same thing happened when I read the alignment archetypes in Aeon Michaels' "Which Star Wars Character Do You Role-Play?" article. Now, both of these guys have been playing D&D about as long as I have. They both seem to be intelligent and educated individuals. Is it possible the three of us have come to three different conclusions about the nature of D&D alignments because we're forcing misguided interpretations on the source material? Is the problem they're both wrong somehow and I've got the "most legitimate" interpretation of the system? Or that one of them is right and the other two of us are wildly off base? I don't think any of these interpretations is accurate. I think the problem is that the source material is fundamentally flawed.
I hate the D&D alignment system. I don't think it works very well, and I'm amazed it has survived with relatively few changes through edition after edition of D&D. It is maddeningly ambiguous, and is conducive to certain very mindless forms of role-play. The d20 system managed to streamline D&D's saving throws, classes, spells, and initiative rolls. These are important mechanics, and they should be interpretable in the same way by different observers, so two people who have never met before might sit down at a table and play an enjoyable game with the same understanding of the rules. That I have yet to meet two D&D gamers with exactly the same perception of a mechanic as fundamental as character alignment says to me that the system has a serious problem.
The Rules Understate The Importance Of Alignment
Part of the problem seems to be the 3rd Edition designers undervalued the importance of alignment as a core mechanic. Both the 3rd Edition and 3.5 Player's Handbooks contain the following passage: "Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character."
This attitude is short-sighted, and the statement is misleading. Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Monks, and Paladins all suffer some kind of penalty for switching to prohibited alignments. That's over half the classes in the game! In some cases, such as the Cleric and the Paladin, alignment changes can result in the loss of all class-related skills. Clearly, alignment as a game mechanic is more important than just "a tool for developing your character's identity." In a very explicit sense, your character's alignment determines what he can or cannot do.
The creators of AD&D acknowledged this. The AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide penalized alignment-changing characters with the loss of a full level of experience. In addition, involuntary alignment changes required massive atonements to rectify, whereas the negative effects of voluntary alignment changes could not be mitigated at all. Gygax writes, "Although it is possible for a character to allow himself or herself to be blown by the winds as far as alignment is concerned, he or she will pay a penalty which will effectively damn the character to oblivion."
That's strong language. Even though the d20 rules have toned down the penalties associated with switching alignment, such penalties still exist for the majority of all character classes. Strangely, the two-page description of alignment in the most recent versions of the Player's Handbook makes no mention of these penalties at all, nor does the passage on changing alignments in the most recent Dungeon Master's Guides.
Furthermore, there are a slew of alignment-specific spells and magic items that target specific alignments. Powerful spells such as Shield of Law and Dictum can make a player's choice of alignment very significant indeed. Being told alignment is not a straitjacket is cold comfort when your character could be killed without a saving throw.
Alignment is not a minor mechanic to be shunted to the Description chapter with eye-color and favored food. No matter what your choice of alignment, the decision is likely to affect your character in some important way.
Alignments Aren't Tied to Specific Behaviors
In the section titled "Changing Alignment," both of the recent (3rd Edition and 3.5) versions of the Dungeon Master's Guide contain this passage: "If a player says, 'My neutral good character becomes chaotic good,' the appropriate answer is 'prove it.'" In my opinion, the appropriate player response to such a question is, "how?" There are no hard and fast guidelines for D&D alignments.
This is the crux of the problem with D&D alignments: the system gives us insufficient data with regard to what behaviors are associated with specific alignments. "Good," the Player's Handbook tells us, "implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." But it doesn't tell us what kind of sacrifices, or how often they should be made. Where does a DM draw the line between a good character and a neutral one? The choice is arbitrary.
On the other hand, "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." But good characters can certainly hurt, oppress, and kill evil ones. Or can they? Perhaps the difference is, as the Player's Handbook continues, that "Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms. . . others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." But when you consider a paladin is often expected to kill evil creatures out of duty to some good deity or master, the moral lines start to become muddied. How far can a holy warrior's holy war go? A paladin cannot resort to evil means, or she will no longer be a paladin. We need a strict definition of what makes evil creatures evil, and we just don't have one.
To cite an example that has plagued me in numerous D&D campaigns, can good creatures torture evil ones? The Player's Handbook is ominously silent on this matter. Or let's say a paladin slays the warriors of an evil tribe of goblins guarding an unholy shrine, and then discovers the goblin women and children cowering behind a tapestry. These creatures detect evil (because the Monster Manual says they do!), but are unarmed and helpless. What does the paladin do in this situation? Does he slaughter them all because they're evil, or must he let them go because they're helpless non-combatants? D&D has led us into the Bermuda Triangle of moral behavior, and our compass has gone haywire.
Furthermore, the Player's Handbook tells us neutral characters have compunctions against the killing of innocents. Leaving the problematic definition of "an innocent" to one side, what about harming innocents? The Player's Handbook doesn't say anything about that. How often, and how severely, can a neutral character harm innocents before she becomes evil?
In AD&D, only evil characters were allowed to use poison. Though 3rd Edition has dropped this prohibition, it illustrates my point: what one observer sees as evil by definition may not be evil at all to another. Though I wonder why AD&D forbade good and neutral characters to use poison (it's ok to hack someone to death with a sword but not ok to poison him?), I am not amused that 3rd Edition removed one of the only specific definitions of evil behavior from the game and did not bother to replace it.
In the movie Unforgiven, Clint Eastwood's character William Munny walks into a saloon where his dead friend Ned Logan lies on display outside the door. Munny asks to know the owner of the bar. When Skinny, the proprietor, identifies himself, Munny shoots him dead. Gene Hackman's character, the Sheriff Little Bill, calls Munny a coward and observes, "You've just shot an unarmed man." Munny replies: "He should've armed himself if he's gonna go decorating his saloon with my friend." Here's a question for all you DMs out there: was Munny's action evil (Skinny was arguably an 'innocent' because he had no weapon and never harmed anyone directly), neutral (Munny is avenging the desecration of his friend's body), or even good (Skinny treats the prostitutes who work for him as his property, and arguably represents the forces of corruption in the town that led to the un-avenged disfigurement of one of the prostitutes and the death by torture of Ned Logan)? My crystal ball tells me different DMs will judge the same action in different ways.
The designers' double use of the word "implies" is significant. The D&D alignment system relies so heavily on implicit information that the arbiter of alignment change can only be the DM. Players have no chance of governing this change unless they know exactly what the DM's interpretation of each alignment is. If the players have merely read the rules, and have never discussed alignment with their DM, they're likely to encounter a difference of opinion when it comes time to judge their characters on the basis of their actions. In any such difference of opinion, it's usually the DM whose interpretation prevails.
Ambiguity Causes Confusion and Dissent
As a player, the ambiguity of the alignment system can be maddening. If one DM allows good characters to torture evil creatures for information and another DM interprets the act of torture as evil enough to cause a change in alignment, players moving between the two are bound to feel frustrated and confused.
In an example from my recent experience, I have a player who prefers to play Chaotic Neutrals. I told her a Chaotic Neutral character was pretty much free to do as she chose. She asked me, "Can I attack other party members if they annoy me?" I said, "Yes, but don't make a habit of it. If you kill another party member without a good reason, I'll shift you over to Chaotic Evil." She accepted this interpretation and played with the group without any disruptive incidents, excepting one time when she threw a fireball at a highly fire-resistant character because he was annoying her. He took no damage, and everybody laughed about it and moved on. Recently, this player and I have joined another campaign as players. The DM has told her flat-out his interpretation of Chaotic Neutral does not allow her to attack another party member under any but the most justified of circumstances (they're under enemy control, they attack her first, etc). The consequence is that she thinks his interpretation of alignment is limp-wristed, and she feels she is not being allowed to play the character she wants to play.
I've encountered similar problems myself. As a DM with a very strict interpretation of what constitutes Good behavior, I take good alignments very seriously when I am a player. Once I joined a game of hack'n'slashers as a Chaotic Good rogue. When I constantly wanted to rescue the prisoners we found and nearly came to blows with a "neutral good" character over whether or not to torture a captive goblin for information, the other players accused me of being more of a goody-two-shoes than the party paladin. The sad thing is that they were right: my rogue was by far the most scrupulous member of the group. Their DM was used to letting them get away with murder (literally!), so they couldn't understand my character's motivations at all.
When Detected Alignment Replaces Moral Choice
In the comments section of my own "How Typical is Stereotypical?" article, Memehunter reminded me of a very annoying and silly phenomenon that arises from the D&D alignment system: the "radar gamer." In her example, good-aligned characters used the Detect Evil spell and paladin ability as a moral litmus test. Whenever an NPC tested positive for evil, they killed him on the spot.
This is the worst kind of systemic exploitation I can imagine, and I'm sad to say it is quite common in my experience. Rather than think about how their characters should behave, many players default to character powers and alignment preconceptions to do their thinking for them.
Does every evil person deserve to die? Clearly, our society doesn't think so, or the concepts of criminal rehabilitation and "not guilty by reason of insanity" would not exist. Moreover, is the honorable but ruthless assassin of the slayer's guild deserving of the same fate as the psychopathic, serial killer priest of the god of murder? D&D characters don't tend to think in these terms. We can attribute part of their mentality to the quasi-medieval setting of high fantasy, but the Player's Handbook must share the blame. I quote from the description of Lawful Good: "A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and who protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good." When players read phrases such as "hates to see the guilty go unpunished" and "fights evil without mercy," what are they supposed to think? The Player's Handbook doesn't supply any specifics or clarification of these phrases, so many players feel quite justified in pursuing a high fantasy brand of instant justice.
What Can Be Done?
If you agree the D&D alignment system is too ambiguous to be useful, you need not despair. After all, the concept of fantasy role-play as made popular by D&D has brought many hours of entertainment to me and countless others over the decades. There are a number of possible solutions to the problem.
Use a different system. This is a painful thing for me to suggest, and many fans of d20 and dyed-in-the-wool D&D players will not seriously consider it. But if D&D is all you know, I encourage you to explore systems that describe behavior in different ways. Some systems, such as the admittedly flawed Palladium system, attempt to solve the problem by providing specific guidelines for each alignment. Other systems, such as GURPS and Call of Cthulhu, ignore the question of player character alignment entirely. GURPS compensates by using character disadvantages that can be assembled in many ways to represent such diverse human characteristics such as truthfulness, codes of honor, intolerance, sadism, and insanity.
Abolish alignments. Why not? If alignment is truly a tool for developing character identity, and not a straitjacket, as the Player's Handbook claims, then it is not necessary to enjoyment of the game. If you abolish alignments, however, you will need to revise the spell and magic items lists and do a little preparation for paladins and clerics. For paladins, take fifteen minutes to write out a "paladin's oath" that specifically outlines the behavioral requirements of the class. For clerics, you must communicate to any cleric PC what her sect expects of her. Where the spell list is concerned, you can simply remove all alignment-specific spells. However, you might want to modify certain spells such as Protection from Evil to become Protection from Outsiders, so they will still function against demons and the like. Alignment-specific magic items can similarly be altered to "bane"-type items affecting specific races or classes.
Use a different alignment system or associate alignments with specific behavior. I have always preferred the Palladium alignment system to the D&D alignment system, for the simple reason that Palladium explicitly states what kinds of behavior are appropriate to each alignment. Though it is not entirely consistent, the Palladium system at least seems headed in the right direction, and is far less prone to abuse and disparate interpretation. To provide a basis of comparison, let me quote the entirety of the Lawful Good entry from the Player's Handbook as well as the Principled alignment from Palladium. These two alignments are more or less equivalent in spirit, but have different applications to actual game mechanics because one is vague and the other specific.
D&D: "Lawful Good, 'Crusader': A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and who protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion."
Palladium: "Principled (good). Principled characters are generally the strong moral character[s]. Superman is of a principled alignment with the highest regard for others' lives, well being, truth, and honor. Principled characters will...
1. Always keep [their] word.
2. Avoid lies.
3. Never kill or attack an unarmed foe.
4. Never harm an innocent.
5. Never torture for any reason.
6. Never kill for pleasure.
7. Always help others.
8. Work well in a group.
9. Respect authority, law, self-discipline, and honor.
10. Never betray a friend."
If you don't want to adopt another alignment system wholesale (possibly because of the changes you might have to make to the spell and magic items lists), try using the Palladium example to draw up specific lists of behavior for each of the nine D&D alignments. It would only take an hour or two all told, and would be a small investment to keep your campaign free of ambiguity and frustration.
Limit the use of alignment detection. If your campaign is plagued by "radar gamers" who are using player powers in conjunction with alignment archetypes instead of using their brains, you can interdict the player powers in several ways. First, try increasing the number of alignment concealing devices used by NPCs. There are several items in the Dungeon Master's Guide to suit this purpose, and the Spymaster prestige class actually specializes in it. Second, try having detection-happy players encounter overwhelming signals. For example, if the paladin in your group is driving you mad by detecting evil every sixty feet, have him detect evil so strongly that he becomes ill. If his own power renders him incapacitated a time or two, he won't be so prone to abusing it. Third, enforce the law. The chances are good that the characters are inflicting frontier justice on inhabitants of civilized realms. As a GURPS supplement points out, the King may not understand why you killed the Necromancer in his basement if the Necromancer was a loyal, tax-paying subject. Clap your PCs in irons, and see if that doesn't inform them not everyone shares their interpretation of "justice."
In conclusion, I realize not everyone will share my perspectives on D&D alignments. However, I believe a reduction in the ambiguity level of the Player's Handbook can only have the result of improving the quality of your games and the moods of your players.
- Login to post comments
Here's a little preface: one of my motivations behind writing an article on this topic is, in part, giving players and GMs the knowledge to think outside of the small guidelines given either by the Palladium system or by the 3rd Edition alignment system. Rather than look at the book for a list, I think it is a better establish a really basic notion of good and evil, and go from there. If everyone can get on the same page, then the bickering is minimized, and there are fewer people complaining about system effects (especially if you use your imagination when it comes to alignment detection / affecting spells).
I don't exactly expect to revolutionize gaming or cure cancer, but it'd be nice if some people thought a little more about this topic as a result of reading my humble article.
That said, we proceed to my (lengthy!) response!
To be frank, I think stripping a Paladin's alignment in that fashion is a rather hamfisted and draconic way of addressing the situation, and bespeaks a fundamental difference of approach in how I think alignment should be handled, and how I imagine a great deal many people handle it. I suspect that this is the source of a lot of our disagreements.
The image of the DM evoked by Xplo reminds me of someone who would also make a player stick to a mistake that a given character would not make, but a player _would_ make based on information that they didn't hear or misinterpreted. ("The spikes fall from the ceiling and kill you." "What? Spikes?" "Yes, I described them a minute ago." "I didn't hear you say that! Everyone else was still arguing! If I'd known that, I would've searched for traps. My _character_ certainly would have seen them and acted accordingly." "Nope, it's too late now; you already said you walked into the room, so now you're dead. Roll up a new character.")
In the latter case, I would (of course) let the character search for traps. However, if he still set them off, I wouldn't let him "redo" just because he approached it the wrong way; even if he tried to argue "Well, I wouldn't have approached it in that way which is why I failed," I wouldn't allow it, because he already had a fair chance.
In the former example, I would say that a Paladin committing an evil act doesn't happen in a void (or at least, it shouldn't). Does the character know he's about to commit an evil act? What is her rationale for doing so? Does the player think it is acceptable within the constraints of her character's ethos and alignment? How does her character feel about it? Obtaining the answers to those questions should make it easy to get to the meat of whether or not the Paladin has done something wrong.
A more subtle point here is that if your DM isn't open to any discussion at all, he's a jerk; rule zero of being a DM is listening to your players. If a player thinks someone is unfair, and there is _any_ merit to his claim, then something is up. This is just common sense, and at the risk of sounding even more snobbish than I will later, it's illogical to fault a system because of someone who is an inferior DM.
This is not meant to imply that I am an accompished DM or anything of the sort (I am far from it), but I do think that matters as fundamental as a character's central set of abilites and powers merits a little more discussion than "Whoops, that's evil! Sorry!" Any prospect of alignment change is something that should take place in the context of a discussion between player and DM so that the DM can get a good idea of where the player and the character are coming from. For any character class whose alignment is central to their character, this is _should_ be a no-brainer... but I suspect that this approach falls more into the role-playing heavy approach to gaming that a large portion of the D&D playing population does not subscribe to. (By no means is that a veiled accusation; I am merely speaking in general.)
This ties in with what I read in your post: I think I see part of our differences, especially why you prefer Palladium over D&D (in terms of alignment), and why I do not.
The Palladium system works right out of the box, with no discussion. That is to say, it's extremely easy for a DM and a player to agree on what does and does not fall under the rubric (oh, man... I can't believe I used that word) of a given alignment because, well, it's on a list. There's not much room for discussion, as the rules are rather black and white in this regard, consisting of a set of distinct behaviors associated with an alignment.
That is precisely why I don't like it. It seems that Palladium reduces alignment to an enumerative system where X, X, and X all run counter to this alignment, A, A, and A all run counter to this alignment, and so on. The richness of a system with more leeway is completely absent here. Instead of your character examining his conscience for his intent and for what he really believes in, you run down a list and check off points to make sure you're not evil. It's so formulaic as to be implausible; _everyone_ following this alignment shares these hard and fast beliefs? That reminds me of D&D 2nd's completely arbitrary rules that I came to loathe and mock. ("Nope, despite the fact that nature is central to their way of life, Elves _can't_ be Druids. Also, only Humans can be Paladins.")
The fact that it's enumerative is also not terribly exciting for me, as it undercuts the notion of moral ambiguity, which (as I may have mentioned before) is something that I think is a great role-playing opportunity for characters to whom alignment is central to their concept or class. Sure, they can wonder about whether or not torture in the name of a good cause is all _that_ bad, but everyone at the gaming table knows what happens when the character breaks that rule. In D&D, a Lawful Good character can still torture people, as torture is not explicitly prohibited ("He is an Orc, and he holds the key to the safey of our village. It is regrettable, but it is a small sacrifice for the lives of all of those women and children.").
The trouble of arguments over acceptable behavior is also only slightly mitigated. Give a bad player a set of rules, and they will follow them to the letter, not the spirit. (Prohibition on killing the unarmed? "What? He had a sword, so he wasn't defenseless! It's not _my_ fault I'm 20th level and he's not!" Gotta work well in a group? "I may be the healer, but he insulted me, and he's too far away anyway.").
The potential result here is that even though the player believes that killing someone who couldn't possibly defend themselves (despite being armed) is okay, the DM might not. Thus, your GM can just as easily slap you down as he can in D&D for a reason that _you_ think is unjustified. (Or, he might _not_ slap that player down despite the fact that they're being an ass!)
What's the distinction between killing someone who is armed and helpless before you as opposed to simply unarmed before you? I don't think there is one, but according to the rules set down for alignment, there's room for one. This problem has a simple answer, of course: the player in question is a twit, and of course they're violating their principles. But it's still a potential sticking point.
Or, for a meatier example, in the case of an enemy who is unlikely to be able to defend themselves against you, are you obligated to level the playing field (i.e., challenge them to a duel, where they pick the standards by which you will both be judged)? After all, a 3rd level evil Aristocrat has no chance of beating a 10th level Paladin, so he's functionally defenseless. That example is not so clear, as the Paladin has what could be considered a hugely unfair advantage, with his training and experience. The honorable thing to do would be to level the playing field so that the Paladin is proven the better man, but how much is required? The DM is forced to make an arbitration that may differ from the player's conception of the rule.
Finally, I'm assuming that if you don't find an alignment that suits you, you have to make one up or alter an existing one. That could (depending on whether or not Palladium has the capacity for that) lead to other game balance issues, with people just making up their own alignments, which defeats the purpose of a common set of rules. The DM now has to chase after the players to provide him with the guidelines of their alignments, either making them write them down (and now he has four or five more things to keep track of). He must also make sure they are clear enough: "Never torture another unless it is necessary." What does _that_ mean?
I'm afraid I'll sound like a snob when I bring this up, but honestly, I think Palladium's alignment system caters to inferior role-playing. That is not meant to be self-aggrandizing, and I offer my humbles apologies if it seems so. What I mean by that is, in general, I think there should be a very fluid give and take in between player and DM: players shouldn't try to abuse or cheese out the rules, and DMs should always be open to discussion about their game. If you assume neither of those, then Palladium's system works beautifully. If you assume both, D&D's alignment system also works beautifully.
(Of course, it always pays to use the right tools; I must say that you've convinced me that Palladium's alignments are the best thing for a group of players notorious for trying to use and abuse systems. In a situation like that, I would do what you suggest, and try to cross-reference Palladium alignments as best I could and hold players to those principles.)
But, it does not escape my noticed that I am probably in the minority on this issue. My gaming background has probably been fairly exceptional; I've had the privilege of participating in numerous discussions about alignment with my gaming group (and zero arguments). Through these discussions, we all reached the same conclusions, and a lot of my conclusions that I discuss here stemmed from these discussions.
(Also, I'm sure it does not help that Mage, with its extremely loose definitions of the Spheres, for example, is by far my favorite game.) (Mmm, Mage.)
Or, put another way, I'm sure there are a lot of people that would rather skip any debate about alignment entirely. In this context, it's easy to see the the appeal of Palladium's system: it gives everyone a list of lists of moral behavior to choose from, providing a common reference that removes any room for discussion (or, perhaps more cynically, argument). Everyone knows where they stand, with no room for debate. To that I say: fair enough.
I'm not sure whether or not I addressed your point with regards to it being a function of the system whether we like it or not. My attitude is to accept that, and integrate it with role-playing tightly enough that the problem is minimized, if not eliminated altogether. There are practical approaches to some of the other system problems, such as radar characters, but that is slightly off base.
I think I'll wrap this up by saying that I am indebted to you for your _Unforgiven_ example, as it is a fantastic illustration of a neutral act, and of the analysis led to that conclusion (which I believe to be simple and intuitive, but perhaps you should be the judge). I will note that I have not seen the movie, but that is not what is important here; what is important is the methodology.
The biggest problem with your various rationale of how it could be considered good, neutral, and/or evil all rest on contradictory premises. On the one hand, you say it might be evil because Skinny wasn't _really_ hurting anyone, but then your rationale for "good" says that he probably _was_ hurting people. Which is it? You're the DM, after all, so there is no need for qualifiers such as "arguably"; _you_ determine the tone and the consequences in your game, so if this were to take place in a game, you don't need to guess at what happens. You _determine_ it.
So, let's apply my rules.
Skinny didn't care about his prostitutes' well-being (callous disregard for life), and he let an innocent man die through wilful negligence (callous again, and compliant to murder). If I am understanding you correctly, not only did these acts/events serve his interests in some fashion or another, but he profited by these (which just compounds the last two points). That sounds like cut and dried evil to me, so, Skinny is evil.
Munny, on the other hand, sounds like he was new to town, so he couldn't have known all that much about Skinny and his activities in town; did Munny have sufficient reason to believe that Skinny was not coerced? Or that he was even responsible? It's far more likely that Munny saw his dead friend, was outraged, and shot what he knew to be an unarmed man. Someone who is unarmed is not necessarily an innocent (is a murderer without a gun innocent?), but shooting someone in cold blood demonstrates a callous disregard for other life, something that is definitely more evil than good. Finally, vengeance in the form of violence is pretty sketchy, especially in such a cold-blooded fashion. It may or may not be premeditated, but Munny knew exactly what he was doing, and probably took some manner of pleasure in what he did.
However! Before we pass judgement on Munny, let's look at the "good" in this situation.
We've already established that Skinny was evil, and as the DM, you can assume that it was unlikely that he'd change. Therefore, a lot of good might come to the town with his removal. Furthermore, as the DM, you can say that he _did_ contribute to the corruption of the town, and contributing to the degradation of morals is evil (it causes a ripple effect of pain/destruction). Finally, I'll bet Munny was no idiot, and was aware of at least some of this; while his friend may've been what was on his mind, I'm sure he knew he'd be ridding the world of a scumbag (and it's reasonable to say that that is good).
So, this isn't really a question of math or connect the dots, but from there, it's simple. A good man kills an evil man in a rather evil way, with mixed intent, and good result. The act is certainly not good, as good strives to do the least harm, but it's certainly not evil because Munny is reasonably sure the guy is a waste product, and as the DM, you _know_ that the village stands to benefit from Skinny's death. Munny probably believes this, too, and fundamentally, we can assume he's a pretty good guy.
We've got a mixed bag here, and good and evil don't really come out on top. Hence, neutral. (And moral ambiguity! Awesome!)
Now, what happens if Skinny is replaced by someone worse (say, Fathead)? In general, a non-evil character would recognize that they are responsible for Fathead's rise to power, and would try to address it. A neutral character might be able to get away with not doing anything ("It's just one more evil guy in a town full of them."). Whether or not _that_ is evil depends on whether or not the character has sufficient reason to believe that they could do something about it... if the character knows it's as simple as sending a letter, then it's evil not to do anything because addressing the problem involves minimal risk and effort on the part of the character.
However, if the character has sufficient reason to believe that Fathead is causing a lot more harm than Skinny ever could have, a non-evil character is obligated to do something about it since they are indirectly responsible for his rise to power: non-evil characters care more about others than non-evil, and it would be irresponsible not to clean up your own mess. I would say that a Paladin would be _obligated_ to right that, but whether or not a Lawful Good character would be obligated depends on the character.
If, on the other hand, someone _else_ kills Skinny, and Fathead rises to power, it's a little different. The neutral character from the previous example would have no responsibility for Fathead's status. It would not be evil not to take up arms against Fathead, but if there are some small ways the player could help, it would probably be evil to turn them away. The example of the letter still holds as stated, as if he has sufficient reason to believe evil is taking place, and he could put an end to it with minimal effort and personal risk, it would be evil not to commit such a simple act. Unless he had more pressing concerns, a Paladin would be obligated to do something about it. Not to do so would be sketchy, at the very least.
It would also be evil to ignore or turn away someone asking for simple aid that was hurt by Fathead (such as medical supplies and staying the night), as long as it was reasonably within the means of the character to do so (and all things being equal, those are fairly reasonable).
However, if they run the risk of angering Fathead as a result of providing shelter and medical supplies, _not_ to provide either would be on the evil side (not even a single bandage?!), and to provide both would be very good (you're taking a personal risk to help someone else). An adept role-player would be able to find some compromise, with the obvious solution being to provide them with medical supplies but not allowing them to stay the night. That would be neutral, as you acknowledge their needs and you give them _some_ aid, though that aid that costs you next to nothing or causes no personal risk.
(FWIW, a situation where time is of the essence is a good example where you have to make a choice between two alternatives, regardless of how imaginative the DM or players are. So, if the entire village was to die in a three hours, it's a day's ride for any external assistance, and you've used up your resources from the previous battle, maybe torturing the Orc king isn't such a bad idea. Admittedly, since we're speaking theoretically, we have the luxury of being able to craft the example however we like, but sometimes it's very dramatic to provide the players with a situation that- if nothing else- _appears_ unwinnable. Great loves and kingdoms have risen and fallen on the backs of such choices.)
Of course, if you're a 20th level character and Fathead's just a weenie by comparison, to not offer any aid or do something about him would be fairly evil, since you could _probably_ make him wet his pants merely by speaking with him firmly. :)