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

[Arkhandus]

Also: You are familiar with the saying "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions," are you not?

That basically applies here. Actions speak more loudly than words and intentions. Doing evil for the sake of the greater good is still doing evil, and while it may eventually make things turn out for the better, the evil-doer still comes off as an evil jerk in the meantime, who tries to justify his wicked acts with "I only had good intentions!! Everything I do is for the greater good!!!" Like many deranged people who kill other people. Which doesn't lend him much credence as a 'good guy'.

Ends justifies the means isn't really a good-aligned philosophy in D&D, it's neutral at best. In D&D your alignment represents your actions more than you intentions or their end result in the future.

Most people who do bad things for the sake of the greater good still acknowledge that what they're doing is wrong, but they are willing to take the burden of those sins for the sake of trying to save other people.

 

[Rvdvelden]

That basically applies here. Actions speak more loudly than words and intentions. Doing evil for the sake of the greater good is still doing evil, and while it may eventually make things turn out for the better, the evil-doer still comes off as an evil jerk in the meantime, who tries to justify his wicked acts with "I only had good intentions!! Everything I do is for the greater good!!!" Like many deranged people who kill other people. Which doesn't lend him much credence as a 'good guy'.

Ends justifies the means isn't really a good-aligned philosophy in D&D, it's neutral at best. In D&D your alignment represents your actions more than you intentions or their end result in the future.

Most people who do bad things for the sake of the greater good still acknowledge that what they're doing is wrong, but they are willing to take the burden of those sins for the sake of trying to save other people.

If you follow that line of reasoning, almost no good characters exist in D&D, IMHO. For killing another (human) being is an evil act in itself. If motivation isn't a factor in this, all characters can only be neutral at best.

I feel that intent is paramount in this case. If you kill a creature because it will inflict more pain and suffering when left alive, you can argue that the killing is not an evil act. If you kill a creature just for the fun of it, then you're evil in my book.

But again, this is all just my very humble opinion.

 

[Arkhandus]

No. Killing other living creatures in D&D is only evil if those other living creatures are not evil themselves and are not perpetuating evil at the time. If you kill an enemy that was about to slay a hostage, you haven't committed evil, even if that enemy was good or neutral beforehand; they were preparing to do evil, and you stopped them. It was not exactly a good act, as it would have been better to subdue them instead, but it was not evil.

Current circumstances matter too, but it's the action that matters most. WarlockLord's example of throwing an orphan at the villain to stop him from destroying the orphanage would be evil. Not as evil, perhaps, as letting the villain destroy the orphanage while you just run up to him to beat him down yourself, but it certainly wasn't not-evil to use that one orphan as a deadly projectile (?! ).

If you do evil so that, sometime much later on, worse evil will be averted, it's still more evil than just trying to avert the later evil without perpetrating an evil act right now to do so.

 

[tzor]

My main queries are these:

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

Yes. There is a difference between, "all things considered I give myself the preference" and "only I matter ... others are worthless." Saying "hey I deserve a tax break even if I have to cheat a little" is probably selfish neutral, but saying "only the little people pay taxes" is selfish evil.​

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

That's a hard one because of the way good and evil are defined in D&D terms. "Evil acts in a good cause" is putting the alignment system to the test. D&D morality would void most "ends justify the means" arguments. Perhaps it is best to say that committing any evil act tends to make a person less good. Committing any good act makes one less evil (although to a lesser degree than the evil act by the good person). Once brought to the happy medium of neutrality it is easier to cross the line.​

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

Yes. One can always delude people including ones own self.​

 

[WayneLigon]

Also: is it me, or do clerics and paladins remind other people too of the Spanish Inquisition?

Only in very badly-run games. Some of the other religions are evil, as in the ones that worship Evil gods. Some of their worshippers might not be, but the religion itself definately is. I don't have my Spell Compendium with me, but 'Sense Heretic' seems mis-named from the capsule description that says it detects evil creatures. Heretic doesn't equal Evil.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

You could have used a different spell, y'know, one that did not inherantly channel the powers of Evil, tapping into the energies of the Lower Planes or whatever. You can Scorching Ray or Disintegrate the bad guy instead, spells that just channel ordinary, natural, elemental forces or transmutive energies. But instead you chose to learn and use a spell that harnesses raw, primordial Evil, which in D&D is a force unto itself.

Thanks, now I don't have to type that part myself. The reason [evil] spells have the [evil] subtype is that they use the power of Evil. Not because they were invented by evil gods or because they are particularly mean, but because you are tapping into a real force of spiritual evil to do your bidding. Just like a [fire] spell doesn't have that descriptor if it just looks like fire or because the end result is similar to having been burned... it's a [fire] spell because it uses the elemental force of fire.

So why is it an evil act to call upon the force of Evil to do your bidding, chanelling pure elemental evil through your own body? We really need to ask? It's not like this is an unknown trope in fantasy literature and the tales and legends that lay the groundwork for it. "Foolish mortal calls on the powers of darkness for all the right reasons and loses his soul / is tainted forever / becomes a tool of that he opposes..." And they didn't always get a nice bracketed "evil" sign to tell them what they were getting into.

 

[Umbran]

Right. Why do people always forget about Neutral?

I don't know why they forget. Perhaps because neutrality is not particularly compelling, because it lacks an extreme nature. Everything these days has to be eXTREME in order to sell, don't you know?

And here's a big point - where I come from, it is very hard to go directly from Good to Evil, or vice versa. There's a whole savanna of Neutrality in between that one generally has to pass through to get from point G to point E. If you get on the big Jet Plane to Evil you can manage it, but most times that's not what happens.

 

[francisca]

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?

In some games I have run, you bet.

In other games, no. Alignment has hardly mattered.

It all comes down to the participants at the table. This stuff needs to be nailed down before char gen.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

And here's a big point - where I come from, it is very hard to go directly from Good to Evil, or vice versa. There's a whole savanna of Neutrality in between that one generally has to pass through to get from point G to point E. If you get on the big Jet Plane to Evil you can manage it, but most times that's not what happens.

IME, many 'alignment changes' are not the character changing alignment so much as the DM informing a player he wrote the wrong alignment down to begin with. In those situation I have no difficulties with the Jet Plane to Evil, because if that's what your character actually is, we're going to correct the mistake right away. In those cases where a character has actually been consistently one alignment (in situations where it mattered) and then strays, the slow change is fine, but its important imo to distinguish between events that reflect a change in a character and events which simply reveal your true character.

 

[Umbran]

IME, many 'alignment changes' are not the character changing alignment so much as the DM informing a player he wrote the wrong alignment down to begin with.

*nod*. I consider those to be issues of mis-communication and differing expectations between DM and Player. I handle those a bit differently, and wasn't considering them in the package.

I think the point sill bears mentioning - it isn't like there are only two states, and you must pick between them. There's a third option. So, rather than phrase the question, "Does this make them Evil?" it ought to be more like, "How much less Good does this make them?"