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

[Zeit]

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

Of course. All alignments - should - have a lot of wiggle room. I'd say that - should you be selfish and self-centered - the moment you become evil rather than neutral is when you actively wish (not necessarily cause) others harm for your own gain. As soon as other's lives are disregarded as unimportant or irrelevant for the self, this person is evil.

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

Yes, although it depends on a couple of things:
1) Just what those acts are and how long they continue (sacrificing a baby to a blood god every week is right out, for example),
2) If the person regrets them,
3) If there is no way to stop them without objectively causing more damage and evil.
In that case, the character would start slipping into neutrality and remain there. If he stops regretting them or if he's just too lazy to stop them, then he's evil.

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

Sure (but it gets more difficult with alignment-changing magic). That's called sociopathy (although not all sociopaths are evil or harm others, there's just an empathical disconnection).

 

[pawsplay]

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?

Yes, yes, and yes. It's also possible to be completely moral by a certain set of beliefs, and find your fall under the Evil heading in D&D-land.

 

[Hussar]

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.

The killing of another has already been covered, but, I'd like to address your first point.

You're right. In D&D, among PC's anyway, there are extremely few Good PC's. Most people write Good on their character sheet and then proceed to do whatever they feel like. At best, many players play Neutral.

Ask yourself this: Why did the group just save that town? Was it because it was the right thing to do? Or because they were paid? Would they have done it for no payment?

Alignments, IMO, are proactive. If you have a particular alignment, your character should be promoting that viewpoint as much as possible. It's not enough to just not do evil. That's neutral. You have to actively do good (or law, or chaos or evil) to have that alignment.

I've seen far to many players write CN on their character sheet because they want to have "freedom" and then be completely trustworthy, predictable and respectful of authority.

Why are so many people allergic to writing Neutral on their character sheet?