Vandalism destroys someone else's property, costing them money, possibly substantial emotional injury. How can that not be evil? Is it as evil as murder? Of course not. But evil exists on a continuum, and "less evil" does not equal "not evil." (For the record, though, perhaps I should have said "destruction of property," since I was thinking of actual damage, not spray-painting.)
Same with embezzlement. Where do you think that money's coming from? It's not created out of whole cloth. Every cent that's going to an embezzler is coming out of someone else's pocket. Again, far less evil than murder, but still evil.
You think it unfocused to include all of these? Why? It's all part of the same continuum, even if it's very far apart on that continuum. Bottom line is, anything that causes direct harm to someone else, without substantial mitigating circumstances (and sometimes even with mitigating circumstances) is evil; all that remains is a matter of degree. I don't believe it's possible to discuss the nature of evil without examining the "little evils" as well as the big ones.
Someone else had a good example. The Rwandan genocide vs. Stalin's purges. One's chaotic, ones lawful. But I hardly think one is "less" evil than the other. They're both utterly horrific.
Again, law vs. chaos is simply a discussion of what form the evil takes. It doesn't measure degree.
Actually, until reading through these posts, I would have probably said the same thing, but now something has made sense to me that clarifies it a bit.
Evil acts are those that deprive another of their freedom - slavery, or the ultimate, death. They are also acts that inflict direct pain and harm to others, like torture, etc. They are evil regardless of the construct of society.
Acts like vandalism are against another, but they are within an artificial construct of society to begin with. In other words, they aren't universal. In a society without money, embezzlement doesn't exist. Sure, it's not a good act, but not quite evil either. It's definitely not lawful. So I think it ends up as chaotic neutral.
In other words, on the good/evil spectrum, neutral is where something lands if it's not good, but not bad enough to be evil. Even damage of property.
In a sense, evil acts are those that are essentially irreversible. You can heal the body after torture, but not the mind. Yes, D&D is a world with resurrection, but death is still final for most. Evil is an act against a person, where neutral is an act against property.
That's not to say that some acts against property can't be evil, such as desecration of a holy site. But for the most part the merely "bad" crimes would land as chaotic neutral acts.
Likewise, a society that has laws that don't respect the property of others would be lawful neutral. For example, if the crown can take whatever land it chooses, without recompense to the owners, that would be lawful neutral. If they could imprison you indefinitely without cause or charges, I would consider that lawful evil.
You're right, it's part of the same continuum, but it's not the continuum of evil. It's a continuum from good to evil.
], so apologies for any repetition.
