What must one do to be "evil" alignment?

[Emirikol]

Can a hermit be evil if he's never exposed to people? Must you "commit" an action to be "evil"? Certainly just thinking selfish or destructive things isn't evil is it?

The reason I ask is that I'd like to have an encounter where the paladin is encouraged to "detect evil" and finds several peasants minding their own business, who've never committed a crime, who aren't hostile to the paladin or his religion, but who are evil.

I want a "what do you do?" moment in this encounter and thoughts on the consequences just to test the alignment system in D&D and the notion of this one guy's paladin.

jh

 

[Yalius]

Try flipping that around. If you had a player whose character never did anything evil, never committed a crime, and wasn't hostile, would you consider the PC evil?

In my view, even the loftiest paladin has evil thoughts occasionally; heck, even Celestials have evil thoughts. It's the self-control to not give into those baser emotions and thoughts that makes one good.

The best way I can think of to make that encounter work is to make a peasant who was (a long time ago) one of the vilest, most evil cultists imaginable; the sort of cultist that a tanar'ri would respect. But he reformed, and for the last ~40 years, has tried to cleanse his soul of those early years, but hasn't (can't?) erase those crimes from his soul. Enter paladin, stage left...

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Intention = Action

Many cultures and religious traditions believe that evil thoughts can actually warp your soul.

-Samir

 

[Brazeku]

Well, it seems that, in D&D, it is possible for sentient beings to be 'born' into certain alignments. There are plenty of races with no alignment deviation, which supports the idea that alignment is not determined by acts, but instead by nature.

Conversely, there are also rules for changing alignment, so actions apparently do have an impact - the idea being, I guess, that you choose where you're going, but not where you start.

Basically though, the system is intended to be a shorthand roleplaying aid and doesn't serve so well for dealing with complicated moral situations. The fact that there are actual physics built into the alignment system in D&D as well leaves little room for argument if a Paladin decides to smite evil and it works. In some places I could see, simply being born evil could be a crime worthy of extermination. This gets especially grimy when entire races are being exterminated because of an evil nature.

It doesn't reflect reality in any way and wasn't ever intended to. My advice, if you want to deal with moral issues, is to play another game, full stop.

 

[Umbran]

I'm going to disagree with Brazeku. The special nature of morality in D&D makes it a better tool for exploring these things in some ways, because it allows you to play with player expectations, and then allow their own judgements to be contratsed against the Universe's.

As to your question - the basic aswer is that the person can be evil without action, if the DM wants it to work that way. The system has flexibility.

I, myself, would say that a character wouldn't ever show as evil if they thought bad things, but never really intended to act upon it. If they don't have enough conviction (or greed, or what have you) to ever act upon their dark desires, they aren't going to be evil.

It isn't how I normally run games, but I could imagine one in which characters who are held back by circumstance or somethign other than their own lack of desire to act, might be evil.

 

[Brazeku]

I'm going to disagree with Brazeku. The special nature of morality in D&D makes it a better tool for exploring these things in some ways, because it allows you to play with player expectations, and then allow their own judgements to be contratsed against the Universe's.

You have an interesting point. My big problem with it is that: player judgements can be made based upon exact information: ie divination. There are ways to detect alignment and the consequences of actions which circumvent undetectable alignment et al. And as for moral dilemmas, they mean very little when you can literally ask a greater power for direct guidance and receive it via Commune or Contact Other Plane. These methods are not always perfectly accurate, but you'd have to completely nerf them in order to make ethical judgements a problem. I'd imagine that in a world with divination and guidance magic that actually worked, the idea of a legal-rational system of justice would seem quaint.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I, myself, would say that a character wouldn't ever show as evil if they thought bad things, but never really intended to act upon it. If they don't have enough conviction (or greed, or what have you) to ever act upon their dark desires, they aren't going to be evil.

It isn't how I normally run games, but I could imagine one in which characters who are held back by circumstance or somethign other than their own lack of desire to act, might be evil.

I partly agree with you. Everyone has evil thoughts at times. That's not enough to make you evil. Even occasionally wishing or considering acting on them doesn't make you evil.

But...

Constantly wishing you could commit evil acts, but failing to do so (perhaps out of fear), does make you evil (albeit only mildly so). And if one has the desire to commit evil, but is prevented from doing so purely by circumstances (i.e. the hermit in the original example), then one is evil.

Actions are the primary judge, but intentions do enter into it, IMO.

 

[Yalius]

I partly agree with you. Everyone has evil thoughts at times. That's not enough to make you evil. Even occasionally wishing or considering acting on them doesn't make you evil.

But...

Constantly wishing you could commit evil acts, but failing to do so (perhaps out of fear), does make you evil (albeit only mildly so). And if one has the desire to commit evil, but is prevented from doing so purely by circumstances (i.e. the hermit in the original example), then one is evil.

Actions are the primary judge, but intentions do enter into it, IMO.

If a person was constantly having evil thoughts and desiring to do evil, I think it would come out in minor, almost inconsequential acts, but acts nonetheless. A hermit might get his pleasure from tormenting animals, misdirecting travelers into danger, despoiling a watering hole used by locals, things like that. There's always opportunity to do evil if that's what you really want. Evil thoughts without any action to realize them are way, way too common to have any bearing on a person's alignment. I do agree that intentions are important, but idle thoughts I don't think rise to the level of intent; the possibility for realization has to be there.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I do agree that intentions are important, but idle thoughts I don't think rise to the level of intent; the possibility for realization has to be there.

I agree; I think we're just defining "idle thoughts" a bit differently.

If Bob constantly thinks about torturing animals but decides never to act on those thoughts because he knows it's morally wrong, he's not necessarily evil (though he's probably more than a bit disturbed).

If Bob constantly thinks about torturing animals but decides not to do so only because he's afraid of the repurcussions, and for no other reason, then I'd say he's evil, he just happens to be held in check.

 

[Umbran]

You have an interesting point. My big problem with it is that: player judgements can be made based upon exact information: ie divination.

Can and will are different things. No party spends their hard-won loot on being able to cast divinations on each and every person they see. In practice, they will do so when there's a question in their minds. When they have very strong expectations, they dont' have the questions, and so don't use the divinations.

The weakness of the other side is this: if there is no objective measure on it, it can be difficult to get players to care about morality. If there is no Good and Evil but what they think, they can simply choose whatever they want, and move on. Not much in the way of moral quandry, there.

And as for moral dilemmas, they mean very little when you can literally ask a greater power for direct guidance and receive it via Commune or Contact Other Plane. These methods are not always perfectly accurate, but you'd have to completely nerf them in order to make ethical judgements a problem. I'd imagine that in a world with divination and guidance magic that actually worked, the idea of a legal-rational system of justice would seem quaint.

Oh, I dunno. Even if you do have the higher word on what is Good and Evil, that does not tell you what you're going to do about it. That's the real quandry...