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

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

If you worked for a newspaper editor, you'd know the answer to this question.

 

[EP]

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. Selfishness is a characteristic, not an outcome. An evil character is generally more selfish but they perform evil deeds for their own sake and do so willingly. A neutral character can be selfish, but doesn't slaughter, rape, and pillage - he just doesn't have that many friends.

B. The problem I see with this query is "knowingly." During my research and examination into the whole evil alignment, it seemed that the knowledge and acceptance of committing evil acts generally lead to a character being evil, but I think their purpose outweighs the actions. It is possible for a good character to perform an evil deed so long as their reason for doing so falls within the good spectrum. For example, a good-aligned character storms a castle and wipes out every goblin and orc he could find, sparing no one. Now, as none of these creatures attacked him first and likely may not have been involved with whatever crime(s) inspired the good character to storm in and kill, kill, kill, the good character has performed outright murder. But none of us see it that way... because they're goblins and orcs being killed. If it was the other way around, we'd see the act as evil, but not for a human or elf. We believe - just as the good character would - that killing the goblins and orcs protects the homesteads that might otherwise be attacked at a later time. Therefore, murder is considered good.

So I'd say yes, it is possible for a good character to knowingly commit evil deeds and still be good.

C. If you're already evil and believe the world is plotting against you and the only fair thing in life is for you to become master overlord of it all, what other people think of you is rarely the last thing on your mind. Even if it is, an evil character will likely draw on their rage and frustration against these people. "Why can't you understand why I'm doing what I'm doing?" he'd say. I'd say evil characters generally don't care what others think about them or are incapable of understanding why others think of them as evil.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

A. Selfishness is a characteristic, not an outcome. An evil character is generally more selfish but they perform evil deeds for their own sake and do so willingly. A neutral character can be selfish, but doesn't slaughter, rape, and pillage - he just doesn't have that many friends.

B. The problem I see with this query is "knowingly." During my research and examination into the whole evil alignment, it seemed that the knowledge and acceptance of committing evil acts generally lead to a character being evil, but I think their purpose outweighs the actions. It is possible for a good character to perform an evil deed so long as their reason for doing so falls within the good spectrum. For example, a good-aligned character storms a castle and wipes out every goblin and orc he could find, sparing no one. Now, as none of these creatures attacked him first and likely may not have been involved with whatever crime(s) inspired the good character to storm in and kill, kill, kill, the good character has performed outright murder. But none of us see it that way... because they're goblins and orcs being killed. If it was the other way around, we'd see the act as evil, but not for a human or elf. We believe - just as the good character would - that killing the goblins and orcs protects the homesteads that might otherwise be attacked at a later time. Therefore, murder is considered good.

So I'd say yes, it is possible for a good character to knowingly commit evil deeds and still be good.

Is this the sort of thinking we can expect in the Allignment related product seen in your sig?

 

[EP]

Is this the sort of thinking we can expect in the Allignment related product seen in your sig?

Yep. There is a specific sidebar about this very topic and several others like it. It's topics like this constantly popping up that gave me the idea to give it a shot.

 

[Phlebas]

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?

just for the record, this is based on my campaign - I don't think there is a RAW solution for alignment (and if there was I would probably ignore it)

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 knowingly 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?

Having said that, IMC, (& IMHO)

a) - absolutely, its almost the default definition of neutral. most people who 'look after number one' aren't murderers or thieves. they're just not likely to help out or be altruisitic. I'd put most petty criminals in this category as well.....

b) - It'll leave a stain on the soul thats for sure, but wouldn't necessarily fall headlong into evil. Repeated acts would slowly lead to a LE type of alignment (ends justifying the means, might makes right kind of thing)
Combat veterans often come across as 'psychologically affected' due to their experiences and thats probably the effect I'd assume for a couple of acts.

c) - I quite often play CE as deranged, but thats not what I think you're asking. Maybe a better example would be the perpetrator from above, who may still believe what he is doing is for the 'good' of the kingdom / city / world and would be insulted by being called evil regardless of how accurate a description that would be

(IMC only gods / planar beings and priests have declared alignments so a person who drifts into evil would not detect as evil, whereas a neutral person who took service of an evil deity would. solves a lot of the problems of trying to interpret actions and relative morality and leaves it down to the player to come up with a legitimate/consistent rational for their PC's actions. Which is in most cases is much more difficult than just writing two letters on the character sheet .....)

 

[WarlockLord]

To go a little off topic...

what do all of the evil people do when a)they get hit by a holy smite b) they cast detect evil and it registers them c)something else along those lines?

This is why I hate D&D morality. With all the 'detect evil', 'smite evil', 'evil as a supernatural force', 'evil domain', it is impossible not to know that you are evil. How many evil clerics have the evil domain? This is dumb. Most evil creatures don't see themselves as evil in reality, but how do you deny it in D&D?

Then there's the whole "evil spells" thing. If a bad guy is about to burn down and orphanage, and you slay him with the evil spell darkbolt from BoVD, saving the kids, you have still committed an evil act. It doesn't matter that you saved the kids. You are still evil. Likewise, deathwatch can be used to heal, not harm, but it's still evil. Animate dead creates brainless automatons that follow the whims of their master. Who says they can't be used for good? But no. It's an evil spell.

And summoning? Enslaving angels is a good thing?

 

[Nifft]

Then there's the whole "evil spells" thing. If a bad guy is about to burn down and orphanage

Then he is about to perform an evil action. This is NOT your fault.

and you slay him with the evil spell darkbolt from BoVD, saving the kids, you have still committed an evil act.

True. If you cut off your finger to save the world, you have one less finger. Actions have consequences. Live with them.

It doesn't matter that you saved the kids.

Think of it this way: if you stop a BBEG from destroying an orphanage by hurling an orphan at him (slaying both the BBEG and the orphan), you have saved most of the orphans. However, you have also killed one orphan.

Was your action good or evil?

I'd say unambiguously evil.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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?

Sure. You can be a selfish and self-centered good guy, but still come through with good acts when the chips are down. See Ash, from Army of Darkness.

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

Sure, but don't make a habit out of it. If you're willing to commit evil acts, you're probably not going to maintain a Good alignment for any length of time, but depending on frequency and magnitude, you could end up settling into Neutral. Same goes for Evil people committing good acts. If you start making sacrifices for the sake of others on a regular basis, but continue to generally be a villain, you might end up sliding into Neutral, depending on how many good acts you commit and the magnitude of goodness you engage in. You have to be consistent in order to maintain alignment extremes. Once you start mixing in acts from the other end of the alignment axis, you start to look more like Neutral.

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

I give a qualified "no." I think that part of having an alignment is understanding the difference between good and evil, law and chaos. Animals are Neutral precisely because they don't grasp their motivations and therefore cannot decide to act in ways other than the ways in which they feel compelled to act. If you really don't understand that what you are doing is evil, then you're probably insane. It might be the case that an insane person who commits evil acts could still be Neutral, for the same reasons animals are (however, even though I'd consider the argument, I might not agree with it). But if you're not crazy, you can decide not to do the evil things, and so you'll know that you stepped over the line. I'd also allow that someone on the boundary between Evil and Neutral may not know exactly when they crossed it, but that's probably just splitting hairs.

 

[WayneLigon]

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

Certainly. Being a selfish bastard doesn't mean you're evil. It's a really good start, but doesn't mean you will definately become evil.

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

Not really, no. Your actions, not the end result, are the thing to look for. Your basic anti-hero will commit some pretty despicable acts to cause an eventual Good result. He damns himself in the process, but is still a hero in some eyes.

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

People have an almost infinite capacity for self-delusion. In the real world, people justify (read: lie to themselves) things they've done all the time. They may be utterly convinced they are a good person, even a saintly person, but the truth of the matter is often quite different. They can even justify to themselves why that Good artifact raises blisters on their hands when he heals the other guy.

 

[Umbran]

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

Yes, so long as it doesn't cause too many people too much harm, and/or what harm is done is balanced by good deeds as well.

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

If the evil acts are not the only thing they are doing, then yes. I find it helps to think about a character's overall "karmic balance" - the occasional miss-step (or well placed step) is usually not enough to move one to an alignment extreme. Generally, it requires a long-term and notable pattern of behavior to establish one as an extreme. So, if you're Good, you really are a pretty darned nice guy. To be Evil, you have to be rather thoroughly nasty.

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

Yes. Depending on the circumstances the character may need to be a bit thick, but it can happen, at least in some cases. Before you worry about that, though, it may pay to consider that realizing that you are evil may mean something a bit different in a D&D world