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

[Incenjucar]

Again, if acts are required for evil, murder weapons are inherently evil, and so long as you keep someone who wants to eat the limbs off of your children and rape them to death behind a locked door, they're not evil yet. They can be striving, they can be a milisecond away from grabbing them, but they're not evil yet.

Uh huh.

 

[Gez]

Dude, if he's thriving and a milisecond away from grabbing someone and eating him alive, he is acting evilly, you know?

On the other hand, if he merely thinks "damn this arm sure looks tasty, err, what am I thinking?" then he's not evil.

Having evil thoughts is not enough to be evil. It's trying to concretize them that is.

Way to miss the point.

 

[Incenjucar]

1) Thinking is an act.

2) Having emotional conflicts is neutral. It's only when you -truly-, deep down, want to do something.

3) If the only thing keeping someone from doing evil is the risk involved, they're still evil. If someone wanted nothing more than to rape and torture their neighbor, but because they were afraid of being caught, they just sat in their room every night doing weird things to a stuffed figure, they're still evil. Cowardice or weakness doesn't change that.

 

[Gez]

If the only thing keeping someone from doing evil is the risk involved, they're still evil.

Have you read this?

According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him, more than human, and having nothing on but a gold ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and reascended.

Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king; into their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outwards and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result -- when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared.

Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; where as soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom.

Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice.

No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men.

Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust.

For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.

 

[Humanophile]

...If the only thing keeping someone from doing evil good is the risk involved, they're still evil good. If someone wanted nothing more than to rape clothe and torture feed their neighbor some refugees, but because they were afraid of being caught it was prohibitively expensive, they just sat in their room every night doing weird things to a stuffed figure playing make-believe and lecturing dolls on being nice, they're still evil good. Cowardice or weakness doesn't change that.

Still feel the same way when the philospohy is turned on its head?

I have to break from the pack here. Leaving aside whether good or evil is more prevalent in the real world (and nay-sayers might find our last "what's your alignment" thread instructive re: how common minor good is), I see aligned-good and aligned-evil as being somewhat parallel to each other. Mirror images, really. If a good-intentioned person who finds acting good to be "too much trouble" doesn't get that good alignment, the same should go for evil-intentioned people seeking an evil alignment.

Plus, since D&D only has three shades of morality, and only two shades of "evil" (neutral with tendencies and proper aligned evil), I like to save the proper alignment for the real baddies. D&D is an epic game, making a spiteful merchant evil-aligned kind of takes the teeth out of the label (as regards spells, items, and other "taint of the soul" tangible effects) for the true genocidal, baby-raping BBEG's. (And yes, I'd stand by the exact same statement if you made all the requisite good/evil terminology flip-flops.)

 

[Incenjucar]

While I agree, Gez, with that story as a general notion (that is, most people are more or less evil at heart), I'll be damned if I agree that it's true for everyone.

I've had boundless opportunities to do wrong. I've even mused over how easy it would be. But you know what? After two years of being locked in to a store sometimes -alone-, knowing full well that I could sneak a candy bar or a packet of gum rather easily, considering how many people shoplifted in that town, and even just left wrappers all over the store, I never did. Heck, they still owe me about six dollars because I was in too big a hurry to wait for them to get me some change. Similarly, I walked half-way out of a store on two or three occassions, only to find that I was given more change than I should have, and quickly walked back in and got my proper, smaller change.

And, being an atheist, I don't have anything to fear from being evil beyond the law. I just have no desire to do what I consider wrong just because I can get away with it.

Call me crazy.

Mind you, I'm damned sure not good, and I know it. I'm just not a thief, a sneak, or the like. I have plenty of cruel thoughts to mix with my wholesome ones, mostly because of a sadistic 'get what you deserve' nature (Basically, I catch someone smacking a cat for fun, I'm going to make them limp for a week at least, which is slightly too far to be justified as justice). Not everyone is tempted to wrongdoing just because they can get away with it. Just most people.

---

Honestly, I don't agree that good and evil are mirror images. It's like saying that chaos and law are completely opposite, when once in awhile chaos, by its nature, embraces law. The fact that you can be supremely evil, but do great good on occassion, while it's much harder to do the other way around, is part of this.

However:

If someone truly wishes, deep in their heart, to do good and be helpful, but they're too afraid to do so, but their nature makes them wish beyond anything that they could, they're good. If, deep down in their heart, they want the endorphine rush that feeling that you've done good affords, they're neutral (the hero who pats himself on the back and brags about saving the town). If the reason, deep down in their heart, that they want to be kind is because that's how they were taught, that's likely lawful. If they convince themselves that one reason is true, but deep down in their hearts, the other is true (like how many a villain thinks they want to save X, but they actually want vengeance for Y), than the one that is deep in their subconscious is their real motive, and the only one that counts.

Consider Spiderman. He's a very human, very selfish character rather often. While he has a genuine care for others, and in many cases, deep down, does good just to do good, his acts are usually good. However, very often, his acts are driven at least as much by a lawful sense of duty, as penence for the death of his uncle, or because he gets an adrenaline rush out of the hero role. While he's definately a good guy, not every rescue Spiderman does is good. Indeed, sometimes he'd much rather strangle the person, as when he saves a foe, but his lawful nature keeps him from the temptation of evil.

One of the big issues, though, is that most people consider themselves good. Humans are, at best, mostly neutral. Give them access to power, and they tend to prove evil. Some say power corrupts, I find that power just lets your true nature show.

--

I definately agree with you in that N(E) and NE should be considered seperate.

The person who likes to scare the hell out of people and make them wet themselves, or the person who likes to steal from the rich person out of sheer spite for them isn't anywhere as evil as the person who builds an army of enslaved souls just so they can wallow in the blood of the innocent.

 

[Staffan]

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

The PHB. Page 88, at the top: "If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that your character's alignment has changed to match her actions." In other words, if you perform evil acts, you are evil.

 

[Will]

Thinking is action and tendency equals done.

I believe that's my cue to leave the thread.

Ta.

 

[Nifft]

IMC, "Detect Evil" detects the presence of the [Evil] descriptor, which cannot be gained by action or thought alone. I call this the Conduct / Sponsorship divide. If you have an [Evil] Sponsor -- you get supernatural powers from an evil source -- then you gain the [Evil] descriptor. If you're a totally normal human mass-murderer, you detect as mildly good, just because you're alive. (This is the counter-point to all Undead detecting as at least mildly [Evil] -- every living thing detects as mildly [Good], unless action is taken to change that status.)

Casting spells with alignment descriptors (such as Summon Monster) involves Sponsorship, even if you're a Wizard or the like. Thus, such acts weigh on your soul, for good or ill.

Conduct may make your Sponsor quit supporting you, which is why Paladins need to behave.

Finally, some beings may have inherent power from celestially pure parentage, or may be born with tainted fiend-blood. They will detect as though they had a Sponsor of the appropriate type, because of the link their birth-powers provide. They can Fall or be Purified.

Thus, IMC it's possible for a Tiefling to be born mildly [Evil], then rise to become a Paladin and become strongly [Good]. Or for a Tiefling to become a Wizard, cast a lot of Summoning Monster spells which call down Celestials, and start to detect as mildly [Good].

-- N

 

[Rel]

Thinking is action and tendency equals done.

I believe that's my cue to leave the thread.

Ta.

One issue that I have with the "thinking is action" philosophy is that it sort of removes the more interesting aspects of temptation. I mean, by that line of thinking, if you were tempted, you may as well do what you were tempted to do.

Say there's a Paladin who finds himself clutching the throat of a young noble whose hubris caused him to flippantly order a group of his men into a hopeless battle where they were slaughtered, and is sorely tempted to squeeze the life out of the fop for his careless action that has cost so many lives. But he stays his hand, knowing that one more death won't bring back the dead soldiers and that this noble may learn from his mistake to become a better commander and person.

Does he need to Atone for his thoughts? If the answer is yes then I would posit that almost nobody who could be considered "human" (including the demi-human races that have human-like mindsets) has any business being a Paladin because they'll spend more time atoning for the wrong acts they were tempted to do than they will fighting evil.