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

[Kemrain]

I'm really leery of the "Alignment is Intent" idea. I mean, you can intend to do good while commiting genocide. Evil is about your actions, because you can't define someone else's intent. A warrior who fights for the freedom of her people through terrorist methods and cares nothing for the lives and wellbeing of enemy troops (to the point of torturing them for information and killing them while helpless) is certanly evil, even if her intent is the freedom of millions.

Can an innocent be Evil? Is a Half-Fiend infant evil? It's not even old enough to stand, but most people would call it evil through and through.

- Kemrain the Devil's Advocate.

 

[Gez]

Gez: Where is it indicated that alignment is defined by actions?

In the Player's Handbook.

 

[WizarDru]

Gez: Where is it indicated that alignment is defined by actions?

In the SRD, it isn't, per se.

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil. Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them. Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

Where the waters get muddy is the wiggle room provided: in many cases some of the components of alignment are considered conscious choices made by the PC. For example, the paladin who turns vigialnte instead of vigialnt, and breaks his vows vanquishing a horrible evil, has made a conscious choice to stop being LG, it could be argued...hence alignment can be dictated by actions and conscious choice, at least in theory.

 

[Gez]

See, it's kinda clear: "A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment."

Alignment represents attitude.
Attitude, contrarily to nature, is the way you act.
Thus, alignment represents actions.
And if alignment represents actions, it means that what defines alignment is actions.
Thus, actions dictate alignment.

 

[Wombat]

Peter Abelard discussed the problem of intent back in the 12th century. To him intention was very important, but then again he was arguing that many people do seemingly good things without bringing in the proper attitude, that they would only do good works because they wanted social standing, religious favour and the like. So for Abelard, it was the combination of deeds and intention together that defined a person as being Good.

Of course Peter Abelard did not help write the SRD, so take that with a grain of salt.

Ultimately the question seems to boil down to this: can a character be Evil strictly for doing Evil (outward) deeds, or must such a person also have Evil intentions? Does someone who does Evil deeds without Evil intent truly Evil?

(replace Evil with Good, Law, and/or Chaos for the full round out)

Equally, are Neutral people Neutral because they consciously balance between points or only because they do not take a firm stand? Is there a difference, then, between Militant Neutrality and Wishywashy Neutrality? Should there be?

 

[Savage Wombat]

Deep in the heart of the Abyss, a strange pod bursts and releases a brand-new demon. Elminster the wizard immediately imprisons the creature - utterly helpless, the creature has never even had the opportunity to do evil.

Yet it's made of the essence of evil. Demons are "always evil" according to the MM.

So is this hypothetical demon evil or not?

 

[Turanil]

I'm really leery of the "Alignment is Intent" idea. I mean, you can intend to do good while commiting genocide. Evil is about your actions, because you can't define someone else's intent. A warrior who fights for the freedom of her people through terrorist methods and cares nothing for the lives and wellbeing of enemy troops (to the point of torturing them for information and killing them while helpless) is certanly evil, even if her intent is the freedom of millions.

I disagree.

The problem is that D&D alignments are a simplistic view (as hit-points are simplistic for relating to being wounded) of "good and evil". In real life I would rather say "psychotic" or terms like that, to describe people who would have been repeatidly psychologically traumatised when young children (and when in the womb), have then grave mental problems that let them perform atrocities on others. I think such persons are unable to understand the negative impact of their "evil" actions on others, and without been aware of it, are all on taking revenge on those who traumatized them, or compensate for what they didn't get as babies, etc., etc. (Well, before arguing over this belief of mine let me say that: 1- Having causes for one's behavior is not an excuse for it; 2- I base my point of view on psychological researches that can be found here ). That said, lets go back to D&D:

The warrior who fights for freedom in performing evil acts is evil, clearly, but his "good intents" are there only a justification to his act. Deeply, he doesn't think of the well being of people, but avenging himself of those who restrain this freedom in killing them. He first think of killing, then add "for a greater good". Well, that's how I would portray it in a game anyway.

 

[Flyspeck23]

Deep in the heart of the Abyss, a strange pod bursts and releases a brand-new demon. Elminster the wizard immediately imprisons the creature - utterly helpless, the creature has never even had the opportunity to do evil.

Yet it's made of the essence of evil. Demons are "always evil" according to the MM.

So is this hypothetical demon evil or not?

Even "always evil" doesn't mean these creatures are always evil.
Honestly. I kid you not.

 

[Will]

See, it's kinda clear: "A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment."

Alignment represents attitude.

Ok

Attitude, contrarily to nature, is the way you act.
Thus, alignment represents actions.

This is a different definition of 'attitude' than most people use. Attitude is internal.

I don't think I've ever encountered 'attitude' being defined as 'what someone has actively done.'

So, in short, by that definition of 'attitude,' I don't agree with your first statement.

For example, from PHB:
'Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.'

It's not hard to postulate 'what if killing someone has yet to have been convenient for this creature.'

 

[Will]

I know it verges on high pedantry, but if we're going to argue texts:

From www.m-w.org:
Attitude
4 a : a mental position with regard to a fact or state b : a feeling or emotion toward a fact or state

One could argue that hating someone or feeling compassion counts as an 'action,' but that would be very odd.