Being evil vs. acting evil? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Being evil vs. acting evil? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
StoneStokes
03-28-07, 10:49 PM I have seen more than one person say something to the effect of:
"there is a difference between being evil and acting evil."

So I'm wondering, what is that difference? How can one be evil without performing evil acts?

Likewise, can one be good without performing good acts?

Can one be lawful without acting lawful?

Conversely, can one act evil and be not evil?
StoneStokes
03-28-07, 10:56 PM In another thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=11919845#post11919845), pukunui had the following response:

You can be evil on the inside but never follow through on any of your evil ideas out of fear of being discovered or getting in trouble or something - this would most likely be true of the Lawful Evil alignment more than anything else.

Someone can commit murder in their minds thousands of times but never actually go through with it because they know they'll get caught and thrown in jail or whatever.

Does this mean that Stephen King is evil? Certainly he has commited countless murders (and other atrocities) in his own mind.

Likewise, is thinking about good deeds sufficient to being good? Within the context of the game, can a paladin maintain that they are lawful good simply by thinking about helping the weak without actually doing so?
DarkNick
03-28-07, 11:00 PM Depends if you believe alignment is an intrinsic and measurable quality of someone or simply a discriptor of how they act.

I think they are too different concepts that influence eachother. I would say that a good person is unlikely to act evil without good reason. An evil act might not make them evil, but sufficient evil acts or a significant evil act will taint them. This would work both ways.

The other easier way to look at alignment is that they are simply points of view. Only things like high level clerics, demons and angels are intrinsicly good or evil.
pukunui
03-28-07, 11:01 PM This is my edited response from the other thread:

In real life, I don't believe we can judge whether someone is good or evil - we can only judge the goodness/evilness (or lawfulness/unlawfulness) of their actions.

Although the d&d alignment system is too simplistic for that level of morality, I would still argue that it's possible for someone to be evil without ever acting evil. If you've imagined murdering so-and-so a thousand times, but you've never gone through with it out of fear of being caught or something, then, in a d&d sense, you'd be evil. In this case, you'd be Lawful Evil ... I don't think you could be Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil without having actually committed evil (or unlawful) acts.

EDIT: I've changed my mind about this, though. See my next post below.
pukunui
03-28-07, 11:04 PM Does this mean that Stephen King is evil? Certainly he has commited countless murders (and other atrocities) in his own mind.Only Stephen King really knows the answer to that question ... but, if we give him the benefit of the doubt, I would say no because he wasn't committing those murders out of hatred for the victims (all of whom would be fictional anyway) but in order to figure out how the plot of his story goes ...

Likewise, is thinking about good deeds sufficient to being good? Within the context of the game, can a paladin maintain that they are lawful good simply by thinking about helping the weak without actually doing so?Actually, I suppose that within the context of the game's alignment system, someone who thinks good but never acts on it or thinks evil but never acts on it would be True Neutral. Therefore, I'll say that it's not possible to be evil in a d&d context without actually committing evil acts. The tricky one is Lawful Evil, since most LE characters are going to hire others to perform the actual evil acts on their behalf.

(I know this contradicts what I said before, but I often form opinions through trial-and-error and by discussing them with people, even if that means contradicting myself until I figure out what I think ... :P)
StoneStokes
03-28-07, 11:08 PM Depends if you believe alignment is an intrinsic and measurable quality of someone or simply a discriptor of how they act.

I think they are too different concepts that influence eachother. I would say that a good person is unlikely to act evil without good reason. An evil act might not make them evil, but sufficient evil acts or a significant evil act will taint them. This would work both ways.

The other easier way to look at alignment is that they are simply points of view. Only things like high level clerics, demons and angels are intrinsicly good or evil.
These are very good points. But I think you haven't addressed the issue. Can a person be evil without commiting an evil act? If one goes through their entire existence without performing a single evil act, how is it that they could be objectively labeled as intrinsically evil?
StoneStokes
03-28-07, 11:11 PM I know this contradicts what I said before, but I tend to form my opinions on this by trial-and-error and by discussing them with people, even if that means contradicting myself until I figure out what I think ... :P
That's okay. It is exactly what I'm trying to do. Others have given this point of view that I don't understand, and I am trying to understand it.
StoneStokes
03-28-07, 11:14 PM pukunui, I don't think that LE is all that tricky. Hiring (or otherwise motivating) someone to perform an evil act seems to be cut-and-dried evil.
pukunui
03-28-07, 11:16 PM That's okay. It is exactly what I'm trying to do. Others have given this point of view that I don't understand, and I am trying to understand it.
Well, if I go by my own personal morality system, I would say that it is theoretically possible for someone to become irredeemably evil without ever actually committing an evil act ... however, it's not possible for someone to be good without committing any good acts - you know the old saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". :P

However, within the limited context of the d&d alignment system, I'd say it's not possible for someone to be evil without acting on their evilness (with the possible exception of Lawful Evil - I still haven't quite figured that one out yet).
pukunui
03-28-07, 11:17 PM pukunui, I don't think that LE is all that tricky. Hiring (or otherwise motivating) someone to perform an evil act seems to be cut-and-dried evil.
Yes, but if we're just defining evil as "committing an evil act", then hiring someone else to commit the act is a rather indirect way of being evil, at the very least.

Lawful Evil people are also more likely to refrain from committing evil acts out of fear of getting caught or breaking the law or something. They're the ones who will imagine murdering so-and-so a thousand times without ever following through on it (unless they hire someone else to "make it look like an accident").
Vaelan
03-28-07, 11:35 PM Can a person be evil without commiting an evil act?
Yes. One's alignment in this regard is a measure of their general moral attitudes. If their general moral attitude is that it is okay to hurt and kill people then they are Evil.

If one goes through their entire existence without performing a single evil act, how is it that they could be objectively labeled as intrinsically evil?
They can be labelled as such because, according to the PHB, one's alignment is a measure of their general moral attitudes, not a tally sheet of everything they have done in their lives as so many people on these forums seem to think.

Likewise, is thinking about good deeds sufficient to being good? Within the context of the game, can a paladin maintain that they are lawful good simply by thinking about helping the weak without actually doing so?
Yes.

However, the difference between Good and Neutral is the conviction in one's beliefs. A Good character is so strongly committed to Good ideals that they will put themselves on the line to uphold them. That is part of the basic definition of Good.

So while a Good character could be Good just because they think Good thoughts, for this to happen there would have to be no opportunity to act to uphold Good ideals.
pukunui
03-28-07, 11:48 PM OK, I'm going to contradict myself again ...

If it's possible, under the d&d alignment system, to be evil without performing any evil acts, I'd say that this would only be true of Lawful Evil and, possibly, Neutral Evil. I don't think it would be possible for someone to be Chaotic Evil without actually committing evil acts.

However, on the flip side, I don't think it's possible for someone to be good, under the alignment system, without actually committing good acts. Anyone who thinks good thoughts and wishes people well but doesn't commit good acts would be Neutral to some degree (whether LN, N, or CN). I don't think a paladin could continue to be Lawful Good by just thinking about saving the children and upholding the rule of law, etc etc. He's got to actually do those things in order to be Lawful Good - although Vaelan raises a good point. If a good person happens to be in a position where there are no real good deeds they can do, they won't suddenly stop being good. So long as they do good acts whenever they have the opportunity to do so, they will be good - but if they continue to refrain from doing something good when they have the opportunity, they're neutral.
Gedrin
03-28-07, 11:59 PM The de/ontological nature of evil is not defined in the RAW. You should ask your DM how it works in his world.
pukunui
03-29-07, 12:06 AM The de/ontological nature of evil is not defined in the RAW. You should ask your DM how it works in his world.
Why do people so often assume that questions like this are being asked by a player who hasn't thought to ask their DM? In this case, "ask your DM" doesn't apply as it's a purely rhetorical exercise. There is no specific "in-game" context motivating the OP. He started this thread so as not to derail another thread discussing the paladin's detect evil ability and the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft module.
Voran
03-29-07, 12:26 AM *snip*
However, within the limited context of the d&d alignment system, I'd say it's not possible for someone to be evil without acting on their evilness (with the possible exception of Lawful Evil - I still haven't quite figured that one out yet).

I think that's a good approach. Which is why you can even begin to start using stuff like "detect evil" because in the dnd game setting, for simplicity sake, sets it up that a dude has "Evil" in its Alignment heading not because he's some selfish dude, but by definition, he's an EVIL selfish dude.

As for the original thread topic. I think part of the danger of 'acting evil' even when you're not evil, is that at least in DnD, the risk becomes that through emulating the acts of darkness, you may step over the line and not even realize it.

The dude with murder and mayhem in his heart, but due to sheer coincidence has not yet erupted in murder and mayhem, is still evil.
Andorxor
03-29-07, 01:54 AM We should take a look a the things that are labeled evil:

1. Mindless undeads that can't act on their own will because the have none
2. Societys that would fall apart if everyone would act evil all the time
3. Gods that could level whole landscapes with their evil acts.Why is the world still around?Are they always stoped by good gods?
4. Whole planes.How does a plane act to deserve a evil aligment?
Derren S.
03-29-07, 02:11 AM ? How can one be evil without performing evil acts?

He can't. In D&D alignment is defined by actions. Without doing evil you are not evil except under special circumstances (birth).
StoneStokes
03-29-07, 03:17 AM We should take a look a the things that are labeled evil:

1. Mindless undeads that can't act on their own will because the have none
2. Societys that would fall apart if everyone would act evil all the time
3. Gods that could level whole landscapes with their evil acts.Why is the world still around?Are they always stoped by good gods?
4. Whole planes.How does a plane act to deserve a evil aligment?

None of those are persons. However, I will address them anyway.

1.
Mindless undead, I maintain, are evil due to their very existence, in violation of the natural law. This existence is the evil act.

2.
A society can be evil even if most of its citizenry is good and/or neutral. (I won't mention specific examples from real life, because I don't want to get the thread closed; but if you look at a society that you would deem as evil, I'm confident that you would agree that most of its citizens were not evil).

A society that doesn't act evil is not an evil society. A society that does frequently practice evil is probably evil. Societies that practice evil all the time do not necessarily fall apart. I'm sure you can find examples from real life (I can think of three) of societies that practiced evil very regularly and flourished.

3.
Evil gods are commiting evil acts all the time. They do so through their worshippers. When a deity gives a follower the ability to Smite Good, for example, that is an evil act.

4.
A plane is good or evil or neutral based only on who or what resides there. It draws its alignment from its residents. In essence, if an act must be named, the act that makes a particular plane evil is the act of hosting evil beings.

One that you haven't named, but I'm sure you meant to is:
5. Artifacts and other magic items.
An unholy artifact is evil, again, because of the unholy power that it hosts. It is the act of hosting evil power that causes it to actually be evil.

Of all the counterpoints so far, the most convincing to me is Vaelan's:
One's alignment in this regard is a measure of their general moral attitudes. If their general moral attitude is that it is okay to hurt and kill people then they are Evil.
However, I still don't completely buy it. Something troubles me with this interpretation: if one knows that it is wrong to hurt or kill people, but they do it anyway, are they evil?

Pukunui is absolutely correct. This is merely an exorcise in rhetoric. The point is the discussion, not the conclusion.
pukunui
03-29-07, 04:35 AM if one knows that it is wrong to hurt or kill people, but they do it anyway, are they evil?Definitely. I'd say someone who knows that what they are choosing to do is wrong (and, dare I say, evil?) is more evil than someone who does it out of ignorance.
StarFyre
03-29-07, 07:26 AM We do alignment in a more realistic sense...like the real world.

The alignment you start of with is what you were trained as a kid, etc (such as how to act), for whatever reason.

However, look at people in real life. Most people are good. Some have aspects of neutrality (I know I would fit into a chaotic neutral type belief system much of the time)...however, even then, most people obey most laws..but look at the reason. Most people obey laws just cause they don't want to go to prison but if for one day, no laws would be punished if someone broke them, many people would be robbing, killing, etc. (I would!)

Based on this, my players do things that make sense based on situation. That said, someone who plays a character who believes in law and order...will try and use that basis for their decision but at times, if something has to be done....it has to be done.

only acceptions are the rare classes thatmay have a code of conduct, etc. (Paladin)

It also makes roleplaying seem even more real :D

Sanjay
Imatash
03-29-07, 09:04 AM One point that needs to happen for a good character is doing good....
For Evil to exist Good just has to do nothing.

Don't get confused by doing Evil Actions and people seeing Evil Actions. Many times a PC that wants to be Evil ends up playing with Good characters even Paladins. If they aren't of a divine nature or possess an Evil magic item then they don't detect Evil. Many of these characters will never overtly be caught doing something Evil. They may even be seen doing good deeds...Cyric before godhood in Shadowdale.
However, what they are doing is for the end in itself ie, fame fortune loot and especially power. Eventually, if the Paladin's back is turned and no one is around you know what will eventually happen. Does your character act Evil in not doing Good? That could be indifference meaning they're Neutral. But even Neutral characters draw a limit to what they will accept as Evil.

Remember Player Characters die....:)
Imatash
Venarfindel
03-29-07, 09:47 AM I think this is all about what we can do and we won't when we are able to do it. This is called morality. This simply explains also the "Being evil vs. acting evil?" thread. Let's say i am evil but i don't commit anything evil that normally i should. So what's keeping me from doing so? Easy answer: Someone else's or society's will or authority. In that case i'm evil but i'm not acting evil by fear.
If you ask for the paladin case, he/she can't arrest me :) because one is innocent until he/she's proven guilty, and if no crime has been ever commited by fear of getting caught then you are innocent. If the paladin has detected you as evil he/she can only observe you until you do something evil. But simply telling that you are going to kill or rob, is enough for him/her to arrest you. Only their result of judgement changes in that case.
Thanks for reading

Volkan
StarFyre
03-29-07, 06:06 PM I always tell my players...remember, alignment/belief, etc is all subjective...in real life and the game world...i gaurantee saddam and hitler didn't believe they were evil ...

the rest of the world (at least half of it for sure) would disagree...

Sanjay
Rulebook
03-29-07, 06:22 PM see the thing is, morality isnt subjective in D&D. good and evil are tangible and quantifiable things.

if you do no evil ever, you are not evil. you might not be GOOD, but until you cross a line, the worst you'll ever be is neutral.

no, it is not possible to be evil if you never commit evil acts. (barring extreme extenuating circumstances.) Succubus Paladins are possible... remember that.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
StoneStokes 03-28-07, 10:49 PM	I have seen more than one person say something to the effect of: "there is a difference between being evil and acting evil." So I'm wondering, what is that difference? How can one be evil without performing evil acts? Likewise, can one be good without performing good acts? Can one be lawful without acting lawful? Conversely, can one act evil and be not evil?
StoneStokes 03-28-07, 10:56 PM	In another thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=11919845#post11919845), pukunui had the following response: You can be evil on the inside but never follow through on any of your evil ideas out of fear of being discovered or getting in trouble or something - this would most likely be true of the Lawful Evil alignment more than anything else. Someone can commit murder in their minds thousands of times but never actually go through with it because they know they'll get caught and thrown in jail or whatever. Does this mean that Stephen King is evil? Certainly he has commited countless murders (and other atrocities) in his own mind. Likewise, is thinking about good deeds sufficient to being good? Within the context of the game, can a paladin maintain that they are lawful good simply by thinking about helping the weak without actually doing so?
DarkNick 03-28-07, 11:00 PM	Depends if you believe alignment is an intrinsic and measurable quality of someone or simply a discriptor of how they act. I think they are too different concepts that influence eachother. I would say that a good person is unlikely to act evil without good reason. An evil act might not make them evil, but sufficient evil acts or a significant evil act will taint them. This would work both ways. The other easier way to look at alignment is that they are simply points of view. Only things like high level clerics, demons and angels are intrinsicly good or evil.
pukunui 03-28-07, 11:01 PM	This is my edited response from the other thread: In real life, I don't believe we can judge whether someone is good or evil - we can only judge the goodness/evilness (or lawfulness/unlawfulness) of their actions. Although the d&d alignment system is too simplistic for that level of morality, I would still argue that it's possible for someone to be evil without ever acting evil. If you've imagined murdering so-and-so a thousand times, but you've never gone through with it out of fear of being caught or something, then, in a d&d sense, you'd be evil. In this case, you'd be Lawful Evil ... I don't think you could be Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil without having actually committed evil (or unlawful) acts. EDIT: I've changed my mind about this, though. See my next post below.
pukunui 03-28-07, 11:04 PM	Does this mean that Stephen King is evil? Certainly he has commited countless murders (and other atrocities) in his own mind.Only Stephen King really knows the answer to that question ... but, if we give him the benefit of the doubt, I would say no because he wasn't committing those murders out of hatred for the victims (all of whom would be fictional anyway) but in order to figure out how the plot of his story goes ... Likewise, is thinking about good deeds sufficient to being good? Within the context of the game, can a paladin maintain that they are lawful good simply by thinking about helping the weak without actually doing so?Actually, I suppose that within the context of the game's alignment system, someone who thinks good but never acts on it or thinks evil but never acts on it would be True Neutral. Therefore, I'll say that it's not possible to be evil in a d&d context without actually committing evil acts. The tricky one is Lawful Evil, since most LE characters are going to hire others to perform the actual evil acts on their behalf. (I know this contradicts what I said before, but I often form opinions through trial-and-error and by discussing them with people, even if that means contradicting myself until I figure out what I think ... :P)
StoneStokes 03-28-07, 11:08 PM	Depends if you believe alignment is an intrinsic and measurable quality of someone or simply a discriptor of how they act. I think they are too different concepts that influence eachother. I would say that a good person is unlikely to act evil without good reason. An evil act might not make them evil, but sufficient evil acts or a significant evil act will taint them. This would work both ways. The other easier way to look at alignment is that they are simply points of view. Only things like high level clerics, demons and angels are intrinsicly good or evil. These are very good points. But I think you haven't addressed the issue. Can a person be evil without commiting an evil act? If one goes through their entire existence without performing a single evil act, how is it that they could be objectively labeled as intrinsically evil?
StoneStokes 03-28-07, 11:11 PM	I know this contradicts what I said before, but I tend to form my opinions on this by trial-and-error and by discussing them with people, even if that means contradicting myself until I figure out what I think ... :P That's okay. It is exactly what I'm trying to do. Others have given this point of view that I don't understand, and I am trying to understand it.
StoneStokes 03-28-07, 11:14 PM	pukunui, I don't think that LE is all that tricky. Hiring (or otherwise motivating) someone to perform an evil act seems to be cut-and-dried evil.
pukunui 03-28-07, 11:16 PM	That's okay. It is exactly what I'm trying to do. Others have given this point of view that I don't understand, and I am trying to understand it. Well, if I go by my own personal morality system, I would say that it is theoretically possible for someone to become irredeemably evil without ever actually committing an evil act ... however, it's not possible for someone to be good without committing any good acts - you know the old saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". :P However, within the limited context of the d&d alignment system, I'd say it's not possible for someone to be evil without acting on their evilness (with the possible exception of Lawful Evil - I still haven't quite figured that one out yet).
pukunui 03-28-07, 11:17 PM	pukunui, I don't think that LE is all that tricky. Hiring (or otherwise motivating) someone to perform an evil act seems to be cut-and-dried evil. Yes, but if we're just defining evil as "committing an evil act", then hiring someone else to commit the act is a rather indirect way of being evil, at the very least. Lawful Evil people are also more likely to refrain from committing evil acts out of fear of getting caught or breaking the law or something. They're the ones who will imagine murdering so-and-so a thousand times without ever following through on it (unless they hire someone else to "make it look like an accident").
Vaelan 03-28-07, 11:35 PM	Can a person be evil without commiting an evil act? Yes. One's alignment in this regard is a measure of their general moral attitudes. If their general moral attitude is that it is okay to hurt and kill people then they are Evil. If one goes through their entire existence without performing a single evil act, how is it that they could be objectively labeled as intrinsically evil? They can be labelled as such because, according to the PHB, one's alignment is a measure of their general moral attitudes, not a tally sheet of everything they have done in their lives as so many people on these forums seem to think. Likewise, is thinking about good deeds sufficient to being good? Within the context of the game, can a paladin maintain that they are lawful good simply by thinking about helping the weak without actually doing so? Yes. However, the difference between Good and Neutral is the conviction in one's beliefs. A Good character is so strongly committed to Good ideals that they will put themselves on the line to uphold them. That is part of the basic definition of Good. So while a Good character could be Good just because they think Good thoughts, for this to happen there would have to be no opportunity to act to uphold Good ideals.
pukunui 03-28-07, 11:48 PM	OK, I'm going to contradict myself again ... If it's possible, under the d&d alignment system, to be evil without performing any evil acts, I'd say that this would only be true of Lawful Evil and, possibly, Neutral Evil. I don't think it would be possible for someone to be Chaotic Evil without actually committing evil acts. However, on the flip side, I don't think it's possible for someone to be good, under the alignment system, without actually committing good acts. Anyone who thinks good thoughts and wishes people well but doesn't commit good acts would be Neutral to some degree (whether LN, N, or CN). I don't think a paladin could continue to be Lawful Good by just thinking about saving the children and upholding the rule of law, etc etc. He's got to actually do those things in order to be Lawful Good - although Vaelan raises a good point. If a good person happens to be in a position where there are no real good deeds they can do, they won't suddenly stop being good. So long as they do good acts whenever they have the opportunity to do so, they will be good - but if they continue to refrain from doing something good when they have the opportunity, they're neutral.
Gedrin 03-28-07, 11:59 PM	The de/ontological nature of evil is not defined in the RAW. You should ask your DM how it works in his world.
pukunui 03-29-07, 12:06 AM	The de/ontological nature of evil is not defined in the RAW. You should ask your DM how it works in his world. Why do people so often assume that questions like this are being asked by a player who hasn't thought to ask their DM? In this case, "ask your DM" doesn't apply as it's a purely rhetorical exercise. There is no specific "in-game" context motivating the OP. He started this thread so as not to derail another thread discussing the paladin's detect evil ability and the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft module.
Voran 03-29-07, 12:26 AM	snip However, within the limited context of the d&d alignment system, I'd say it's not possible for someone to be evil without acting on their evilness (with the possible exception of Lawful Evil - I still haven't quite figured that one out yet). I think that's a good approach. Which is why you can even begin to start using stuff like "detect evil" because in the dnd game setting, for simplicity sake, sets it up that a dude has "Evil" in its Alignment heading not because he's some selfish dude, but by definition, he's an EVIL selfish dude. As for the original thread topic. I think part of the danger of 'acting evil' even when you're not evil, is that at least in DnD, the risk becomes that through emulating the acts of darkness, you may step over the line and not even realize it. The dude with murder and mayhem in his heart, but due to sheer coincidence has not yet erupted in murder and mayhem, is still evil.
Andorxor 03-29-07, 01:54 AM	We should take a look a the things that are labeled evil: 1. Mindless undeads that can't act on their own will because the have none 2. Societys that would fall apart if everyone would act evil all the time 3. Gods that could level whole landscapes with their evil acts.Why is the world still around?Are they always stoped by good gods? 4. Whole planes.How does a plane act to deserve a evil aligment?
Derren S. 03-29-07, 02:11 AM	? How can one be evil without performing evil acts? He can't. In D&D alignment is defined by actions. Without doing evil you are not evil except under special circumstances (birth).
StoneStokes 03-29-07, 03:17 AM	We should take a look a the things that are labeled evil: 1. Mindless undeads that can't act on their own will because the have none 2. Societys that would fall apart if everyone would act evil all the time 3. Gods that could level whole landscapes with their evil acts.Why is the world still around?Are they always stoped by good gods? 4. Whole planes.How does a plane act to deserve a evil aligment? None of those are persons. However, I will address them anyway. 1. Mindless undead, I maintain, are evil due to their very existence, in violation of the natural law. This existence is the evil act. 2. A society can be evil even if most of its citizenry is good and/or neutral. (I won't mention specific examples from real life, because I don't want to get the thread closed; but if you look at a society that you would deem as evil, I'm confident that you would agree that most of its citizens were not evil). A society that doesn't act evil is not an evil society. A society that does frequently practice evil is probably evil. Societies that practice evil all the time do not necessarily fall apart. I'm sure you can find examples from real life (I can think of three) of societies that practiced evil very regularly and flourished. 3. Evil gods are commiting evil acts all the time. They do so through their worshippers. When a deity gives a follower the ability to Smite Good, for example, that is an evil act. 4. A plane is good or evil or neutral based only on who or what resides there. It draws its alignment from its residents. In essence, if an act must be named, the act that makes a particular plane evil is the act of hosting evil beings. One that you haven't named, but I'm sure you meant to is: 5. Artifacts and other magic items. An unholy artifact is evil, again, because of the unholy power that it hosts. It is the act of hosting evil power that causes it to actually be evil. Of all the counterpoints so far, the most convincing to me is Vaelan's: One's alignment in this regard is a measure of their general moral attitudes. If their general moral attitude is that it is okay to hurt and kill people then they are Evil. However, I still don't completely buy it. Something troubles me with this interpretation: if one knows that it is wrong to hurt or kill people, but they do it anyway, are they evil? Pukunui is absolutely correct. This is merely an exorcise in rhetoric. The point is the discussion, not the conclusion.
pukunui 03-29-07, 04:35 AM	if one knows that it is wrong to hurt or kill people, but they do it anyway, are they evil?Definitely. I'd say someone who knows that what they are choosing to do is wrong (and, dare I say, evil?) is more evil than someone who does it out of ignorance.
StarFyre 03-29-07, 07:26 AM	We do alignment in a more realistic sense...like the real world. The alignment you start of with is what you were trained as a kid, etc (such as how to act), for whatever reason. However, look at people in real life. Most people are good. Some have aspects of neutrality (I know I would fit into a chaotic neutral type belief system much of the time)...however, even then, most people obey most laws..but look at the reason. Most people obey laws just cause they don't want to go to prison but if for one day, no laws would be punished if someone broke them, many people would be robbing, killing, etc. (I would!) Based on this, my players do things that make sense based on situation. That said, someone who plays a character who believes in law and order...will try and use that basis for their decision but at times, if something has to be done....it has to be done. only acceptions are the rare classes thatmay have a code of conduct, etc. (Paladin) It also makes roleplaying seem even more real :D Sanjay
Imatash 03-29-07, 09:04 AM	One point that needs to happen for a good character is doing good.... For Evil to exist Good just has to do nothing. Don't get confused by doing Evil Actions and people seeing Evil Actions. Many times a PC that wants to be Evil ends up playing with Good characters even Paladins. If they aren't of a divine nature or possess an Evil magic item then they don't detect Evil. Many of these characters will never overtly be caught doing something Evil. They may even be seen doing good deeds...Cyric before godhood in Shadowdale. However, what they are doing is for the end in itself ie, fame fortune loot and especially power. Eventually, if the Paladin's back is turned and no one is around you know what will eventually happen. Does your character act Evil in not doing Good? That could be indifference meaning they're Neutral. But even Neutral characters draw a limit to what they will accept as Evil. Remember Player Characters die....:) Imatash
Venarfindel 03-29-07, 09:47 AM	I think this is all about what we can do and we won't when we are able to do it. This is called morality. This simply explains also the "Being evil vs. acting evil?" thread. Let's say i am evil but i don't commit anything evil that normally i should. So what's keeping me from doing so? Easy answer: Someone else's or society's will or authority. In that case i'm evil but i'm not acting evil by fear. If you ask for the paladin case, he/she can't arrest me :) because one is innocent until he/she's proven guilty, and if no crime has been ever commited by fear of getting caught then you are innocent. If the paladin has detected you as evil he/she can only observe you until you do something evil. But simply telling that you are going to kill or rob, is enough for him/her to arrest you. Only their result of judgement changes in that case. Thanks for reading Volkan
StarFyre 03-29-07, 06:06 PM	I always tell my players...remember, alignment/belief, etc is all subjective...in real life and the game world...i gaurantee saddam and hitler didn't believe they were evil ... the rest of the world (at least half of it for sure) would disagree... Sanjay
Rulebook 03-29-07, 06:22 PM	see the thing is, morality isnt subjective in D&D. good and evil are tangible and quantifiable things. if you do no evil ever, you are not evil. you might not be GOOD, but until you cross a line, the worst you'll ever be is neutral. no, it is not possible to be evil if you never commit evil acts. (barring extreme extenuating circumstances.) Succubus Paladins are possible... remember that.