And bringing in the question of how characters should treat children of monstrous races... yeah, that's a whole 'nother dilemma, and not one I think needs to be brought into this discussion.
I wasn't going to really, but your counterexample has suddenly made it essential to this discussion.
Ok, yes, it isn't likely to simply happen. But one could have evil inclinations without ever acting on them until that single act...
And in which case you are 'evil' even before you commit the evil act. The evil act is just the outward manifestation of you inner evil.
...and that act remains just as irreversible.
All acts are irreversible. There are no takebacks on anything you ever do. What I think you mean is that the act is not one you can make restitution for, which oddly, isn't true of a D&D world. In D&D, you could actually go back and raise the person you murdered back to life.
I think I see alot of the source of your confusion, but I don't know if I'm going to be able to get at it.
First, I think we both agree that no human in the real world is actually fully evil or fully good. The worst human monsters are still capable of some finer feeling, and the best human saints are still capable of evil thoughts and deeds. What you seem to be saying is that we have some sort of scale that we've lined everyone up on and that there are a few crimes (murder for example) that are so unpardonable that it doesn't matter what we put on the other side of the scale that you still weigh out as evil. I believe that you are describing an intrinsicly 'lawful' view of the world where people 'get what they deserve' and follow must rules to be good. It's not I think how 'good' looks at the world necessarily, as I think one of the traits of Good is that they don't see anything as unpardonable and unforgivable (or, conversely they see every act of evil as equally unpardonable, so there is no use only condemning some evil alone).
But that's not even what I'm talking about here. I'm discussing an evil person taking good actions - and stating that doing so in no way violates some 'evil code of conduct' he is supposed to abide by.
I know what you are saying.
That seems to really, really simplify the concept of evil, as though at some point a figure just instantly becomes a psycopath.
Funny you should say that, because that is pretty much exactly what I was saying to you. You seem to really simplify the concept of evil, as if at some point a figure just instantly becomes a psychopath. That's your example of how the world works, not mine.
I've found that most effective villains tend to have reasons for their actions, even if those reasons are self-serving - some are simply misguided, some are selfish, some are power-hungry, etc.
Sure, I don't deny that. But I'm trying to discuss evil as a whole. Intrinsicly self-serving evil exists, and in D&D terms we'd call it 'Chaotic Evil', but there is also a self-sacrificing evil out there as of someone who is willing to die for the sake of an evil cause. Indeed, I think more evil is characterized as self-destructive than it is as self-serving. Self-serving greedy lustful evil is just one of its many faces.
There are also those that simply enjoy killing for its own sake, but I'd say that is one specific area of 'evil', and not the entirety of it.
Agreed.
For a very easy example to counter your point, though: Say there exists a human lord who hates elves, and barely even sees them as people. An elven boy insults him, and he cuts him down in cold blood. But most of the time, he works for the betterment of his city, and would even run into a burning orphanage to save the (human) children inside. He believes himself a good man, and sees no inconsistency in his behavior - but his willingness to kill elven children at a whim clearly makes him evil.
Oh, I wish on one level you hadn't used that example, because it is exactly my point but it opens up a huge can of worms. But on the other hand, maybe we can get at the problem better this way. I'll give it a shot.
Say there exists a human lord who hates orcs, and barely even sees them as people. An orcish boy insults him, and he cuts him down in cold blood. But most of the time, he works for the betterment of his city, and would even run into a burning orphanage to save the (human) children inside. He believes himself to be a good man, and sees no inconsistancy in his behavior - but his willingness to kill elven children at a whim clearly... means what?
I don't think it clearly means he is evil. I think it clearly means he is a good man who does evil. I think that if he is who you have said he is, if he understood that elves (or orcs) were people that he would be horrified by his actions and be filled with remorse. But conversely, if he really was an evil man, and he realized that elves (or orcs) were people, why would he care?
That one single murder, without remorse or regret, makes him a good man, because it crosses the line.
Does it? Where is this line drawn, and who gets to draw it? Is that one crime unpardonable? Is the one area that he is ignorant in unforgivable? What makes it more unforgivable than another act of evil?
Again, I think you are greatly trivializing the problem of good and evil.
On the other hand, say there is a skilled assassin and thief who will murder anyone for the right coin. He kills for profit, and enjoys it - thus is an evil man by any measure. But when not at work, he doesn't simply cut down people in the streets. He'll tip well, and if he sees some drunks harassing his favorite barmaid, he'll drive them off.
Are any of those acts of charity? I think your again confusing acts of being good mannered, polite, civilized, etc. with acts of good. Does he tip well because of compassion, or does he tip well because he wants to be seen tipping well (and hense admired) or because he likes to see himself as the sort of person who tips well (treating his inferiors with magnamity so that they'll adore him). You haven't really stated that there is a conflict in this person's life. You haven't really demonstrated that he's doing anything 'good'. That's why I couldn't compare 'saving the life of a child' with 'cold blooded murder', because for all I know he could save the child by accident or with intent to sell the child into slavery or because he was sexually attracted to the child. Yes, some minor bit of pity on his part might show he wasn't completely depraved just as a wrathful word might show a saint isn't completely holy, but its a minor bit of pity you are staking against a major act of depravity.
If he sees some orcs attacking a caravan of travelers and their children, he'll step in to kill the orcs, confident in his ability to do so. Being willing to help someone out, or take these good actions, doesn't undercut the fact that he is a murderer at heart. Being evil doesn't restrict him to not doing good in any way, shape or form.
Yes, it does.
But I'm talking about the fact that an evil character can commit a good act without becoming good - can retain all their standard evil ways, even as they do this good deed. While a good character cannot so easily commit an evil act.
No, a good character can even more easily commit an evil act. But as long as we are adopting this measuring stick of good and evil, then a good character can commit an evil act without becoming evil - can retain all their standard good ways, even as they do this foul deed.
In any case... yes, obviously, throwing around insults or similarly harmless acts....
Harmless??? Harmless??? On such evil is all the evils of the world founded. Throwing around a slander or a hard word is every bit as evil as murdering someone, and quite often slanders and hard words kill. There is nothing at all harmless about wrathful invectives. They are not 'minor evils' that are pardonable while you stand in judgement of someone else.
But your original claims was that evil was outright restricted from good acts in the same way good is restricted from evil acts, and that just isn't remotely true. I'm using extreme acts because they are the clearest to illustrate this.
On the contrary, they render the question the most complex and difficult for several reasons. For one, extreme acts of charity that are filled with goodness as murder is filled with depravity are much harder to describe. I'm forced to resort to saying things like, 'Schindler's List' to communicate them. For another, by bringing criminality into the question you tie up the question with legalism and issues of justice that have nothing to do with the present moral state of the actor. And finally, you attempt by using 'murder' to set evil off in a far away place greatly removed from most peoples experience so that they can happily engage in self-righteousness and judgementalism - 'that is a bad person'.
good character is restricted from murder, among other extreme acts. Killing someone innocent in rage or pride or hate or for whatever reason - a character can't do that, and remain 'good'. Perhaps they can atone. But this is clearly an act that defines them as evil.
A good character is restricted from alot of things, most of which are not extreme acts in the sense you mean it. Which is why I keep bringing up the notion of 'depravity'. Not everyone that is clearly characterized by 'evil' murders, steals, rapes, and so forth. Yet clearly, to murder someone in cold blood requires a level of depravity that even some people who reutinely commit more mundane evils might refrain from. Hense, a person that murders is probably pretty far down the path to pure evil and it would be surprising that they could be redeemed.
There is no similar restriction for evil characters. No one single act of mercy or generosity or salvation inherently undoes their nature.
Any more than a single act of wrath, hatred, or pride inherently undoes the nature of a good person. Yes, there are indeed similar restrictions for evil characters. Actual acts of mercy, generosity, and charity would go against their nature and indicate a turning away from their former nature. A truly tremendous act of mercy, generousity or charity could very well indicate that they've made the hard climb back from depravity and are 'a new man'.
If they then go on to spend the rest of their life doing good deeds, than sure, they are now good - but if they continue to commit evil acts, the occasional act of good doesn't remove their evil nature!
And vica versa.
But what I'm looking at the absolute you stated - that evil characters have to somehow commit to a 'code of cruelty' in order to retain their evil nature. And that just seems absurd to me.
Yes, of course they do have to commit to a 'code of cruelty'. They might not be conscious of it, any more than a truly good man is conscious of their own goodness, but they've committed to it.
