What must one do to be "evil" alignment?

[UnsocialEntity]

Sociopaths can live perfectly normal lives and never be noticed as such. The thing about a sociopath is that every time there is a decision to be made, they don't consider "other people getting hurt" to be either a pro or a con.

Some people consider this to be "neutral." I personally disagree as "other people getting hurt" tends to be something most people shy away from. So IMC, sociopaths show up as evil. They may never *do* an evil act but they are constantly considering doing things that would be evil.

Sorry, don't mean to pick on you, but...

From the SRD:
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.


The game rules themselves seem to say "not caring" falls under neutral. This reinforces the idea that yes, Evil does mean you like to eat babies. You have to start doing some truly evil stuff to fall under that category.

This is all assuming you're interested in the "core" alignment rules, instead of adapting it to how you want it to be.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Yeah but sociopaths will consider hurting people they "care" about, not just strangers. Neutrals will weigh the option of hurting strangers but would almost never consider hurting their children or parents.

 

[AnonymousOne]

Consistant over-arching self-interest to the point of malice.

How then would you deal with the Randian ideal of rational Self-Interest? Greed is good as long as it is bound by the ties of reason.

I really, REALLY hate the model that D&D has set up with regards to their morality, somehow altruistic self sacrifice is good, and trying to preserve your own skin is cowardly...

Seems odd to me.

I see Evil as oppression/tyranny/control/sadism et al.

 

[WayneLigon]

I really, REALLY hate the model that D&D has set up with regards to their morality, somehow altruistic self sacrifice is good, and trying to preserve your own skin is cowardly...

You mean the standard of heroism that almost all of humanity lives under? Throughout history, there has never been a greater pinnacle of 'good' behavior than a man who will lay down his life for others. Likewise, the man who spares his own skin at the cost of others losing their lives is the most contemptable kind of coward, unbearable in his degeneracy and state of divorce from the human race.

 

[UnsocialEntity]

Yeah but sociopaths will consider hurting people they "care" about, not just strangers. Neutrals will weigh the option of hurting strangers but would almost never consider hurting their children or parents.

Yes, if you start hurting people you "care" about by doing something, then you very well may be evil. But this still reinforces the fact that you have to *do* something to be considered evil.

You said a sociopath could be evil without having to do anything that would hurt someone. The only way you could argue this is if by circumstance, EVERY time he made a choice for his entire life, he chose the option that never hurt anyone. In which case yes, i'd argue that he was neutral and you would argue that he was evil, in D&D terms.

A neutral on the other hand doesn't do things to hurt innocent people, they just don't go out of their way to help others either.

Really all it boils down to is to register as evil, you have to have commited an evil action. A sociopath that has hurt innocents multiple times could very well fall into the evil category. However it should be because of his actions, not his thoughts.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

A hermit that is evil, but never been around people to commit an evil act. Thoughts of evil do not make one evil, its the actions that you take that make for evil deeds. So thinking about mowing down a bunch of people with a lawn mower isn't evil, but doing it is.

Thinking about killing other people is not evil.

The question is, if you had the opportunity to kill people for your own pleasure or profit and get away with it, would you actually do it?

If yes, then you are evil - even if you never get the opportunity.

This depends on the paladin's code of conduct.

They are not all the same.

If he is based on "justice" then you are probably correct (at least much more common in this case).

But what if he is based on "vengence"?

"Vengeance" does not fit into any definition of Good I am aware of. Justice fits into Good, but vengeance in itself is a fairly dark emotion.

Then all evil must be stamped out is still within the LG alignment and his personal code of conduct would reflect this while still maintaining the core requirements for all "generic" paladins specified in the PHB.

"Stamping out evil" does not mean "killing everyone who registers as evil", since that is in itself evil.

What's the definition of "Good" in D&D?

""Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

Killing everyone who registers as evil, without even bothering to learn if that person is actually guilty of a crime warranting death, certainly doesn't sound like having a " respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" to me.

Not all paladins behave the same, nor should they. IMO too manypeople ignore the code of conduct and think the the generic one in the pHB is "the" code of conduct. That is simply wrong, each paladin, as well as each cleric, has his own code of conduct that is copatable with his deity's and will define how he views the world and what he should be doing (that is conducting himself) at all times.

Sure they can have different codes. But what you are suggesting is incompatible with the mandatory Lawful Good alignment. Of course, you could create a variant class of paladins that can be LN in alignment, but that's something different entirely...

 

[kigmatzomat]

Really all it boils down to is to register as evil, you have to have commited an evil action. A sociopath that has hurt innocents multiple times could very well fall into the evil category. However it should be because of his actions, not his thoughts.

Actually, by the RAW, you don't. A newborn could register as evil. Admittedly, it would normally only be visible if they were of an evil race but a half-fiend would be born evil.

But this is the classic metaphysical question of D&D alignments. Is someone who is *willing* to be evil, but never does evil, evil? Meaning if a psychopath who *wants* to harm people but resists because there is always some negative consequence that outweighs the pleasure, are they evil (by nature) or neutral (by action)?

IMO, and only MO, D&D alignments are based on nature. Paladins can tell who has the potential for evil. They can't tell if the person has ever acted on it but they know who wants to act on it. IMC the reason paladins don't hang out with evil people is less oath based and more because they see the person as a poisonous snake, who will more than likely do harm because it is in their nature.

YMMV and you can choose to run it otherwise but that's my take.

 

[Nifft]

"Stamping out evil" does not mean "killing everyone who registers as evil", since that is in itself evil.

I'll go a step further. Stamping out evil is evil, because it eventually requires the death of free will, or of everyone who has free will. (Free will requires that one be able to choose Evil -- free will requires the potential for evil.)

-- N

 

[Merkuri]

I'll go a step further. Stamping out evil is evil, because it eventually requires the death of free will, or of everyone who has free will.

Ooh, but isn't free will a "chaotic" concept, not necessarily a "good" one?

 

[Nifft]

Ooh, but isn't free will a "chaotic" concept, not necessarily a "good" one?

Without the will to choose, I'd contest that an individual can't be good, evil, lawful or chaotic.

Cheers, -- N