Duty and Goodness

Is doing one's duty a good act? If someone does what they're supposed to do because they're supposed to do it, is that a good thing for them to do?

In terms of D&D, no. It would not be a "Good" act. It would be a "Lawful" act, and I'll try to explain the difference. A Lawful Neutral character (that is, a character who obeys the rules and laws of society, but isn't swayed by Good or Evil) would obey the rules and laws of society, whether the rules are good or evil. If a Lawful Neutral character had a legal duty to evict a starving, elderly widow because she had no money and couldn't pay her rent, he very well might do it. On the other hand, a Neutral Good character (or a character who does good, within the law when possible but outside the law when necessary) might look the other way and let the widow keep her home.

These two examples reveal an important truth: When one has a legal duty to do something evil, it is not good to obey that duty. Therefore, doing one's duty just for the sake of doing one's duty is not necessarily good.

But what if one has a duty to do something good? Would it be considered "good" for them to do it, even if they only did so out of duty? My answer is Yes and No. The answer is Yes, because their duty is to do a good thing, and if they do it, a good thing is done. That is, by definition, good. For example, if a person has a legal duty to feed the hungry, and they do, then the hungry get fed, and that's almost certainly a good thing, at least for the hungry.

Yet, I don't think it would necessarily count as a good act for the purpose of evaluating the duty-doer's soul. I think that goodness is measured mostly by motivation. For instance, if a person tries to do good, but it goes badly, I think they still get points for trying. Meanwhile, on the other hand, if a person's actions are not motivated by a desire to do good, but coincidentally happen to be good, I'm not sure that fully counts as them doing good. If a person tries to hurt someone, but ends up helping them by accident, I don't think we would count that as a Good act.

So, by my estimation, doing one's duty because it is one's duty is, by itself, neither good nor evil. It can have good or evil results, depending on whether one's duty is to do good or evil, but I'm not sure how heavily that bears on a person's soul. In order for an act to be considered Good for the purpose of measuring a soul, it must be motivated by a good desire, and I don't think adherence to duty counts.

So, no, doing one's duty is not, by itself, a good act. Bummer. I guess I'll have to earn my brownie points by actually going beyond doing my duty to intentionally do good. At the very least, I'll have to do my duty, not just with the intent to do my duty, but also with the intent to do good.