How do you handle evil?

[RuinousPowers]

Its an evil action, Id say the Doctor is likely neutral, and certainly lawful for participating.

I'd say he is not evil because he doesn't kill on a regular indiscriminate basis.

What if the doctor's job was delivering lethal injections all over the country, so he does do it on a regular basis? Would that make him evil?

 

[payn]

What if the doctor's job was delivering lethal injections all over the country, so he does do it on a regular basis? Would that make him evil?

It's not necessarily how often they do it, but why they do it. If the doctor started doing assisted suicides and purposely hurting/killing their patients then it seems pretty evil. Likely, LE because they have found a loophole to kill people and not be punished for it. If the doctor just does it for a job and wants it done humanely, then Id call that doctor LN.

 

[RuinousPowers]

It's not necessarily how often they do it, but why they do it. If the doctor started doing assisted suicides and purposely hurting/killing their patients then it seems pretty evil. Likely, LE because they have found a loophole to kill people and not be punished for it. If the doctor just does it for a job and wants it done humanely, then Id call that doctor LN.

I wouldn't call assisted suicide evil, and "purposefully killing their patients" is pretty much the description of a doctor whose job is to employ lethal injections.

What I find interesting is you describe a character as neutral who is doing actions you deem evil. To me, Neutral isn't just a transitory alignment between good and evil, requiring a balancing act of good and evil deeds to maintain. It's its own thing, so I would not make a statement that "Neutral characters commit evil acts". Neutral characters act in Neutral ways.

 

[le Redoutable]

I wouldn't call assisted suicide evil, and "purposefully killing their patients" is pretty much the description of a doctor whose job is to employ lethal injections.

What I find interesting is you describe a character as neutral who is doing actions you deem evil. To me, Neutral isn't just a transitory alignment between good and evil, requiring a balancing act of good and evil deeds to maintain. It's its own thing, so I would not make a statement that "Neutral characters commit evil acts". Neutral characters act in Neutral ways.

and you throw up a happy smiley !
brrrr !

 

[payn]

I wouldn't call assisted suicide evil, and "purposefully killing their patients" is pretty much the description of a doctor whose job is to employ lethal injections.

By purposefully, I mean they actually want to derive some satisfaction from taking a life personally. Not doing it for external reasons like for society or to ease a persons suffering.

What I find interesting is you describe a character as neutral who is doing actions you deem evil. To me, Neutral isn't just a transitory alignment between good and evil, requiring a balancing act of good and evil deeds to maintain. It's its own thing, so I would not make a statement that "Neutral characters commit evil acts". Neutral characters act in Neutral ways.

Good folks are not going to kill unless they have to. Neutral folks can be persuaded that sometimes killing is for the best, but generally avoid it. Evil folks think killing to achieve your goals is fine in any context.

As I have always read it, neutral doesn't have a strong compunction to act in good or evil (law or chaos). They can lean either way as the situation presents itself. Thus, there isnt really any such thing as a neutral act.

 

[RuinousPowers]

Thus, there isnt really any such thing as a neutral act.

And I think that's the crux of the disagreement/misunderstanding. I do have behaviors that are defined as Neutral. One thieves guild battling another theives guild over territory would not be evil if the violence was contained only to those members, for example.

 

[payn]

And I think that's the crux of the disagreement/misunderstanding. I do have behaviors that are defined as Neutral. One thieves guild battling another theives guild over territory would not be evil if the violence was contained only to those members, for example.

Interesting take. Is this based on readings of alignment (any edition) or just something you came up with? (Its perfectly ok to be your take I'm just interested how you got there.)

 

[billd91]

As I have always read it, neutral doesn't have a strong compunction to act in good or evil (law or chaos). They can lean either way as the situation presents itself. Thus, there isnt really any such thing as a neutral act.

Of course there are neutral acts - they're things you do that don't have a moral component. A lot of them are pretty routine. Getting your chores done, selling your surplus at the market, using the chamber pot.... all things you do without significant moral character or implication.

And I think that's the crux of the disagreement/misunderstanding. I do have behaviors that are defined as Neutral. One thieves guild battling another theives guild over territory would not be evil if the violence was contained only to those members, for example.

Why would that not be evil? Does evil really have to be done to innocent people for it to truly be "evil"? Evil can't prey on other evil?

 

[RuinousPowers]

Of course there are neutral acts - they're things you do that don't have a moral component. A lot of them are pretty routine. Getting your chores done, selling your surplus at the market, using the chamber pot.... all things you do without significant moral character or implication.


Why would that not be evil? Does evil really have to be done to innocent people for it to truly be "evil"? Evil can't prey on other evil?

Of course evil could, and would, prey upon other evil beings. But evil killing evil wouldn't necessarily be an evil act.

 

[le Redoutable]

Of course there are neutral acts - they're things you do that don't have a moral component. A lot of them are pretty routine. Getting your chores done, selling your surplus at the market, using the chamber pot.... all things you do without significant moral character or implication.


Why would that not be evil? Does evil really have to be done to innocent people for it to truly be "evil"? Evil can't prey on other evil?

you mean, things done with no purpose, or Amateur works ?
edit : that's not a matter of purpose, but of Challenge !