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

[Majoru Oakheart]

There is a good section in the BOVD about evil deeds and what they mean. As well another one in the BOED, but a lot of the BOED tends to contradict the BOVD.

The BOVD says that intention doesn't matter. If a Paladin poisons a town because he believes all the residents to be fiends, it is still evil. Even if a demon showed up, with an illusion pretending to be his god, and using an illusion to show him the "truth" that all of them were demons. If the Paladin runs off to poison the town, even if he thinks it is in the greater good, he is evil. Because he didn't legitimately TRY to make sure he wasn't doing an evil act. He didn't TRY to figure out if they were really ALL demons, even killing one innocent is still evil.

The BOED tends to go the other way mostly, saying that it is your intent WHILE performing an action that makes you good or evil.

The information in the PHB leads me to believe that if one doesn't act on his evil thoughts, he isn't evil. I like D&D to be a game of black and whites. Evil people perform sacrifices to their gods, carelessly slaughter anyone they can get away with killing, and do things with NO thought about how it might affect others. Good people throw themselves into danger without worrying about their own life and go out of their way to assist those in need.

The hypothetical person probably had many chances to do evil things. They could have snuck into someone's house at night and killed them in their sleep. They could have followed someone into an alley and killed them and robbed them. They could have done any number of evils. There is no such thing realy as being "unable" to do evil things. Just because he is not willing to go far enough to do evil, doesn't mean he is unable. That makes him neutral. IMHO, thoughts do not evil make without a real INABILITY to perform the acts.

Just as the BOVD says, any act can be defined by how much effort you actually put into it. If you do something just because it is easy to do and won't harm you in any way, you are neutral. If you manage to get rid of your worst enemy at an opportune time, and after that, don't do anything evil, you are still neutral. Same thing as if you save someone's life because you were right there.

As was said before, being good or being evil requires effort.

Majoru Oakheart

 

[Jack of Shadows]

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?

Evil innocents are very common. We call them children.

Jack

 

[Will]

I think it is intent, but intent tied very specifically to action.

That is, if someone would knife someone else for cash, if given a chance to 'get away with it,' that person is evil, whether or not they ever got the chance to do it.

Likewise, if someone is chained to a rock somewhere but wants to save humanity, and would actually do so if given a chance, that person is good.

In the real world, we shy away from such pronouncements, because there is no RL way to know what someone 'would' do, and people who say one thing or another are often full of crap. But D&D magic 'knows.'

However, this is not, in my mind, connected to the idea of 'intent' as it is used in the real world. That is, doing evil for a good cause doesn't matter. It is intending to do an act, not what you think the ultimate results are about.

If I murder innocents, sure that it will save the world, I am still disregarding the wishes and well-being of people. It's still evil. However, saving the world is still good.

So... on to 'if you act like X, your alignment changes.' This, to me, is partially about practical limitations... one can argue that 'the situation is strange, that's why I'm acting evil, but I really would be good!' A GM lacking the magical power of a D&D cleric will have to take the more mundane approach, and go by the 'put up or shut up' rule.

So, in short, I feel actions are evidentiary (sp?), but not the core of alignment. Someone can be evil who doesn't show it, but actual acts of evil or goodness are a good indication of where alignment is (or is going).

I also think spells that are good or evil have an influence type of effect. Brushed by the wing of an angel, one might be inspired to become good. Touching the source of unlife and dealing with diabolic forces, and one is pulled elsewhere...

And a final thought. Again, I think people ascribe too narrow a focus for 'good' and 'evil.' While that might be good as a houserule, it's not the core system. Core D&D has vast numbers of people being good and evil. So the selfish merchant who clips coins is evil, and the nice innkeeper who nonetheless asks for money up front can be good.

In my campaign, however, I reserve all alignments for extremes, and most people are neutral.