Evil in D&D: as black and white as it seems?

[Thurbane]

I know there have been numerous discussion about this in the past, but I'm wondering if, under the D&D alignment system is a "black and white" as it seems?

My main queries are these:

A.) Is it possible to be selfish and self-centred but still be neutral, rather than evil?

B.) Can someone knowlingly commit evil acts in a good cause, and not be (or become) evil themselves?

C.) Is it possible for someone to be irredeemably evil, but not even realise it themselves?

 

[the Jester]

imho:

A.) Is it possible to be selfish and self-centred but still be neutral, rather than evil?

B.) Can someone knowlingly commit evil acts in a good cause, and not be (or become) evil themselves?

C.) Is it possible for someone to be irredeemably evil, but not even realise it themselves?

A. Absolutely!

B. It depends- they would likely fall to Neutral, and eventually to Evil, but not immediately. So yes, it's possible, but you have to keep the evil acts minor and brief.

C. Absolutely! How many villains think they're doing their villainy "for the good of ______", after all?

 

[Nifft]

A) Sure.

B) No. Evil acts aren't the same as merely "non-good" acts.

C) Yes! Most Evil people don't think of themselves as Evil. They think of themselves as strong, brave souls who take risks others don't dare take.

This is all IMHO and IMC.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Meloncov]

A.) Is it possible to be selfish and self-centred but still be neutral, rather than evil?

Yes, as long as they limit the harm to others while persuing their self-centerdness. Capitalism is neutral, theft is (generally) evil.

B.) Can someone knowlingly commit evil acts in a good cause, and not be (or become) evil themselves?

Occasionally, but their alighnment will shift over time.

C.) Is it possible for someone to be irredeemably evil, but not even realise it themselves?

Ireddmably? Proably not. I'd say the only iredemmable creatures are evil outsiders, who are definately aware of being evil.

 

[Hussar]

I know there have been numerous discussion about this in the past, but I'm wondering if, under the D&D alignment system is a "black and white" as it seems?

My main queries are these:

A.) Is it possible to be selfish and self-centred but still be neutral, rather than evil?

B.) Can someone knowlingly commit evil acts in a good cause, and not be (or become) evil themselves?

C.) Is it possible for someone to be irredeemably evil, but not even realise it themselves?

In order (I haven't read the other responses yet).

A) Certainly. Selfish and self centered aren't necessarily evil. Taken to extremes, they are.

B) Certainly. Alignment describes general trends and can break down in the specific. A good king may have to do evil things to save his kingdom, for example. However, if he makes a habit of it, then he's likely evil.

C) Certainly. Sociopathic killers don't see themselves as evil, for example.

 

[Arkhandus]

I know there have been numerous discussion about this in the past, but I'm wondering if, under the D&D alignment system is a "black and white" as it seems?

My main queries are these:

A.) Is it possible to be selfish and self-centred but still be neutral, rather than evil?

B.) Can someone knowlingly commit evil acts in a good cause, and not be (or become) evil themselves?

C.) Is it possible for someone to be irredeemably evil, but not even realise it themselves?

A) Yes. Being evil requires causing undue harm to others. As long as the character doesn't cause other people to suffer a lot because of his/her actions, he/she won't be evil.

B) Nope. Commiting too much evil, for any reason, in D&D will turn the individual evil in alignment. It is a representation of actions and consequences, not intent. The consequences could be good down the road, or lead to 'the greater good', but if the actions are evil themselves then the character will become evil after a while. I.E. killing babies is evil no matter how you look at it, even if you have absolute knowledge that in the future those babies will become evil warlords. You can always try to wait and face them down when they're able to defend themselves. But murdering them while they're not, before they've even done evil, is evil itself.

C) Sure. Many evil people see themselves as good or decent people. They're just deluded and self-absorbed so they don't notice that they're wrong.

 

[CruelSummerLord]

I know there have been numerous discussion about this in the past, but I'm wondering if, under the D&D alignment system is a "black and white" as it seems?

My main queries are these:

A.) Is it possible to be selfish and self-centred but still be neutral, rather than evil?

B.) Can someone knowlingly commit evil acts in a good cause, and not be (or become) evil themselves?

C.) Is it possible for someone to be irredeemably evil, but not even realise it themselves?

A. Of course. Lots of people might be selfish and self-centered, but there are lines that they won't cross.

Someone might cheat on a university exam to get ahead, but they won't go out of their way to ruthlessly destroy the lives of their competition, or murder anyone who gets in their way.

B. Sure. It all depends on the context. Destroying orcish and goblin women and children would be a Neutral act at worst, possibly even an act of Good, if your setting has it that these beings are inherently evil, and pose a threat to humanity when they grow up.

Doing the same thing to humans, dwarves or elves is obviously Evil, but in this case, who cares?

They're just orcs. And this is a fantasy game, not a parallel of the real world.

On other occasions, soldiers or kings may have to do things out of necessity, even if they don't want to do it.

Those Sunndian soldiers will burn Ahlissan villages so the Ahlissan troops won't have anyone to support them (which is what William Wallace did to the English peasants), even if they lament having to do it. It's either that, or have the Ahlissans burn their own family homes.

C. You bet-just look at Adolf Hitler. Murderous bandits might think they have to act the way they do to survive, hill giants aren't given to philosophical discussions on why they squash puny humans and dwarves, priests of an evil god justify the reprehensible actions they take through the teachings of their deity.

 

[Faraer]

D&D graphs alignment on a two-dimensional plane of good–evil and chaos–law continua (literally 'shades of grey'). Minor long-term behaviour (A) or single acts (B) which move alignment in the evil direction probably won't push a character into the next square in the grid.

I think C is a matter for individual settings and campaigns, rather than something that D&D needs to have a stance on. I'd say it's certainly possible, but also tend to feel that the 'villain who thinks she's doing good' method is currently overused.

 

[coyote6]

a) Yes. At least up to a point; if you start hurting people, you'll probably end up evil ("Hey, I need that food more than those stupid brats, so I'll just take it" or the like).

b) To a point, but as others said -- if it's extreme (genocide) or too frequent, say hello to the slippery slope and that road paved with good intentions.

c) Sure, as long as they don't cast detect evil on theirselves.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm gonna go with consensus, here

A.) Is it possible to be selfish and self-centred but still be neutral, rather than evil?

Evil, as I read it, is actively deriving pleasure from the pain of others. It's not merely wanting what is best for you -- it is simultaneously wanting what is worse for everyone else. Wanting what is best for you EXCLUSIVELY for you.

B.) Can someone knowlingly commit evil acts in a good cause, and not be (or become) evil themselves?

Once, twice, three times? Maybe. Single incidents don't shift alignment since alignment is only a general descriptor of behavior. But if it happens regularly, then another alignment is more apt to describe their actions. Usually, the shift is gradual: you don't go straight to evil for doing evil acts if you're good, you'll be "demoted" to Neutral first.

IMC, I like testing alignments, and I'll give characters several tries to re-assert their position. If a character makes a habit of taking my "evil bait," I might shift their alignment. Not that it comes into play unless they're dealing with clerics or outsiders or whatnot (which, honestly, happens a lot in my games ).

C.) Is it possible for someone to be irredeemably evil, but not even realise it themselves?

Sure thing. It's also entirely possible for someone to be irredeemably evil and not really CARE about that fact. A rogue can easily see Evil as the fitting philosophy for his life and his strategy to become powerful and amass wealth. He would be called vile and wicked and would entirely agree with that and wouldn't be troubled in the slightest: it's the correct view for him.

To not realize it would be a simple step from apathy to ignorance. Alignment detection is exclusive to the magically powerful, and in D&D, such things are still largely out of the hands of the common folk. MOST evil people probably don't realize it, but their neighbors might think they're jerks (or maybe not even that in the case of a charismatic manipulator type).