Is it possible to be evil and innocent (in D&D)?

[Turanil]

I was reading some threads about alignments, and was wondering about this:

Would it be possible, in the game, to have an evil npc who never commited any crime or nuisance to anyone. Like some beggar who is hateful, snarling all the time, insulting everyone (but in a very low voice to avoid retaliation), and dreaming he could kill and torture them all... yet he is just a simple beggar who never did anything wrong of all his life (he had not the opportunity and never will). Now a paladin comes and detects he is totally evil... so what? (I mean, in terms of 3.0 because things are maybe different in this regard in 3.5?)

Think of other ambiguous things like that? How could they be used to useful ends in an adventure?

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Sure, why not?

Use: A nobleman protects his keep by putting a ward over the gates so that none may pass through that have "performed evil". Your beggar becomes the pawn of an assasin's guild because he can get through the ward.

 

[Flyspeck23]

Would it be possible, in the game, to have an evil npc who never commited any crime or nuisance to anyone. Like some beggar who is hateful, snarling all the time, insulting everyone (but in a very low voice to avoid retaliation), and dreaming he could kill and torture them all... yet he is just a simple beggar who never did anything wrong of all his life (he had not the opportunity and never will).

I'd say it is possible, as alignment is not only about what you do, it's also about your view of the world.
It's not just the BBEG and his henchmen who are evil.

OTOH, it might well be that the beggar in question isn't really of evil alignment, but rather neutral (with tendencies toward evil).

As always, it's up to the DM...

Now a paladin comes and detects he is totally evil... so what? (I mean, in terms of 3.0 because things are maybe different in this regard in 3.5?)

Yeah, so what? A paladin shouldn't smite any and all evil persons left and right. IMHO of course

 

[Asmor]

Absolutely. Evil is all about intent, not actions.

If there were someone who was very greedy and self-centered but avoided doing anything "naughty" out of simple fear of the repercussions from the law, they'd still be evil. Hell, it's entirely possible to be evil and use the law to your advantage, although doing so would mean one was no longer "innocent" (in a moral sense, if not legal).

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I think you have to be pretty specific in your definition of "innocent." In general I'd say sure it's possible - for example, you might have someone who is hateful, greedy, and cruel, but who lacks the courage to act on his baser desires - or is in a position where it isn't safe to act on them. Chances are he's done small cruelties, though, and here's where the definitions get blurry.

 

[Umbran]

Would it be possible, in the game, to have an evil npc who never commited any crime or nuisance to anyone. Like some beggar who is hateful, snarling all the time, insulting everyone (but in a very low voice to avoid retaliation), and dreaming he could kill and torture them all... yet he is just a simple beggar who never did anything wrong of all his life (he had not the opportunity and never will).

I'd actually say no, he wasn't evil. For this simple reason - nobody goes through life without any opportunity to do evil. There's always some opening to do harm to others, and even gain by it, if he really wants to.

This guy is instead neutral, verging on evil. He lacks the real oomph or committment to do real evil, though he does have the opportunity, if he ever chose to grasp it. Until then he's surly, foul tempered, and nasty-minded, but until the attitude becoems strong enough to do action, he's not really evil.

This is equivalent to the usual neutral townsperson. He generally follows the law, even though he may not believe in it. He recognizes that Good is better for folks than Evil, but is not personally willing to act. To really sit at any of the four poles requires some committment, not just lip service.

 

[WizarDru]

Each group addresses the ball that is alignment differently, and there is no absolute or correct answer.

My opinion is that yes, you can have an NPC that is evil who hasn't committed a crime, and isn't even a nuisance. Personally, that means to me that they would, if given ample opportunity and the right conditions, or they just haven't acted on evil impulses yet. There is also the condition that they have performed evil acts that weren't a crime.

Case in point: one could say that Ebenezer Scrooge was Lawful Evil, at the start of the 'A Christmas Carol'. You could make a case that he was always acting within the bounds of the law, but was also clearly performing evil acts. If your next door neighbor has always been friendly, but secretly has a desire to cut you up and bury you in his compost heap that he's afraid to act upon, is he neutral or evil? Personally, I think he's evil. I consider the whole 'with X tendencies' to be something of a loophole...but then, I view alignment as a general guide that describes someone's previous behaviors and intents, not as an absolute law. Hence,

Ebenezer Scrooge goes from LE to NG or LG, depending on how you view it, by the end of the story. Talk amongst yoursevles.

 

[Wombat]

If all alignment devolves to intentionality (and I am quite willing to accept that theory), then being Innocent precludes the character from being labelled as Evil, as any act taken would be assumed by the Innocent to have neutral or good consequences, rather than actively working to bring about evil consequences.

Of course this would probably place most people into the Neutral category again, but I am good with that.

The greater problem comes up, of course, with a person who acts in a way that he ASSUMES will bring about a Good end, but actually brings about an Evil end, due to not having thought through the circumstances or the willingness to bring about the "greatest good for the greatest number", whereby some specific individuals (again, not Evil individuals, but probably Innocents) end up on the short end of the stick.

Innocent might even be another variant on Neutral; it's sort of hard to say...

 

[evildmguy]

You obviously haven't been around a lot of kids!!



Have a good one! Take care!

edg

 

[Henry]

It depends; those this person enjoy causing pain and suffering to others? Does he devalue human life and dignity? If so, he's evil. Even if he never committed a single crime, he's evil in thought, if not in deed.