PDA

View Full Version : Why the Evil Alignment Spectrum is so Undefined



imp_fireball
2009-06-09, 11:53 PM
First, let's take a look at the different axioms:

Lawful Evil - A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

Neutral Evil - A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

Chaotic Evil - A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.

Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
----

Evil. What is evil? Well, in a black and white scenario, it would be the opposite of good.

But on a more general basis, how do you identify one from the other?

Good exists to help others. Evil exists to destroy, corrupt, or otherwise harm others.

But why? The main thing D&D doesn't grasp is that it doesn't realize that it must ask players to understand why, or define why in their own way. It merely cuts and pastes assumptions of what evil might be perceived in a typical genre film - whether if that's 'safer' for imploring a quick and easy/fun campaign though is not the key question to ask here.

The main question is more broad. Simply why.

Evil opposes good. Evil harms others. Evil only scratches its own back.

"Screw the rules (of society), I am evil!" Evil says.

But how could anyone bring themselves to commit evil? Of course, in a cliche campaign, it isn't just anyone. The Big Bad Evil Guy is most likely evil(tm), and most likely famous - how else would the PCs hear about him?

What needs to be known, realistically, is what defines evil. That in itself, is the first step, in discovering why.
-----

So let's take a look at what big, powerful evil people do. Powerful people don't necessarily have to be influential. In fact, power can be anything.

In terms of D&D, power most likely represents raw, physical power. The ability to best someone else in combat, best represented by one's challenge rating.

An evil character with a high challenge rating has a lot of raw power. The SRD often assumes that an evil character will commit murder a lot. It makes sense; what better way to stay both evil and powerful than to make use of that power and murder indiscriminately? And clearly an evil person with less of a challenge rating (having less raw power at their dispossal) would end up committing less murder. Does that make the latter less evil?

If we play it by that linear scale, then the conclusion immediately defines evil as that of anyone who has a high challenge rating and commits lots of murder. But then murder must be quantifiable. How much murder exactly???

"How much must I murder to retain my chaotic evil alignment?" Cries the player to the GM. The GM frantically looks up the PHB (3rd ed in this case) but finds no quantity. The GM is ultimately confuddled. Error. Does not compute. Rocks fall! Everybody dies. Blue screen of death. Reboot. Better luck next campaign.
-----

"But wait!" Thinks a reader, "That's not how it should work at all. I've seen (insert pop fictional culture) where there's other kinds of evil abounding. Evil can be subtle too!"

Why, yes! In fact, the SRD pretty much defines that as Lawful Evil! Evil that is commited without the necessity to flex the limits of your ECL to their absolute greatest extent. Affably evil. Intelligently evil.

But wait, intelligence? Don't the rules allow chaotic evil people to have higher intelligence scores than lawful evil people?

Why yes, in fact a chaotic evil person can completely outclass a lawful evil person mentally in all faculties.

Why then, does it still mean a chaotic person has to flex the full extent of their ECL's combat prowess? Is it truly wise to murder a stranger because you felt like it? Are chaotic evil people still incapable of planning? Are they still frequently unsuccessful entirely because of their alignment?

Why yes... I mean maybe. I mean...

Doesn't the PHB state that alignment is not a straight jacket?

Of course, but...

I think we should at least play it safe and ask the audience here.
------

Evil is poorly defined and could use a perceptive overhauling. Opinions?

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-10, 12:08 AM
Only skimmed the OP so far, but...

Couldn't a Chaotic Evil character cleverly arrange for a lot of senseless deaths without endangering himself? You know, more along the lines of poisoning the town's water supply than attacking random people on the street.

Or does CE need to be overtly criminal? Does just pretending to follow the rules push you towards NE? If it does, then it should push a Good character towards CG, too.

I see choosing to harm others as a central component of Evil. Necessary, if not sufficient, for a deed or a creature to be Evil. (And yeah, it does depend on how you define "harm".)

Eloel
2009-06-10, 12:10 AM
Don't get another alignment debate in here, we have enough...

Tengu_temp
2009-06-10, 12:15 AM
The more evil you are, the less moral qualms you have against performing acts that give you benefit at the cost of someone else. A pure evil character's morality will not stop him from killing a kid to take his candy, or just for the lulz - some other elements might stop him, like knowing he won't get away with murder or feeling that it's too much effort for too little results, but morality won't be one of them.

imp_fireball
2009-06-10, 12:53 AM
Only skimmed the OP so far, but...

Couldn't a Chaotic Evil character cleverly arrange for a lot of senseless deaths without endangering himself? You know, more along the lines of poisoning the town's water supply than attacking random people on the street.

Or does CE need to be overtly criminal? Does just pretending to follow the rules push you towards NE? If it does, then it should push a Good character towards CG, too.

I see choosing to harm others as a central component of Evil. Necessary, if not sufficient, for a deed or a creature to be Evil. (And yeah, it does depend on how you define "harm".)

The Joker is chaotic evil and he frequently plans things. But at the same time, he doesn't conceal who he is.

In the dark knight, he flaunts himself to everyone. He's the Joker. Be very afraid. His beliefs make him a cold blooded anarchist (anarchy for fun, anarchy for the sake of your own taste in comedy) and the most blatant example of one.

Does that rectify your assumptions or does it only serve to confuse things further?

A good sub-question: Do chaotic evil people ever have clear and acheivable goals? Or are they always just insane? Could the same thing be covered by insanity rules and the use of a broad character trope?

By contrast, the Joker doesn't have reasonable goals (Anarchy isn't reasonable; burning money that you caused so much anguish and suffering over to steal isn't reasonable).

Consider reason be something most likely defined by a human society (since humans are real).

Mastikator
2009-06-10, 12:56 AM
Is it truly wise to murder a stranger because you felt like it? Are chaotic evil people still incapable of planning?I take issue with this.
It is neither wise nor unwise to commit murder for fun. Priorities and behaviors are NOT covered by int-wis-cha stats, those describe capabilities. People can be complicated, maybe someone is sadistic enough to enjoy killing, and thinks that getting in trouble for killing is more fun than not. People can have different goals.
Secondly, you are not incapable of planning because you're chaotic, you're chaotic because you're incapable of planning. But being incapable of planning doesn't necessarily mean chaotic, it's a detail in a larger picture. Personally I don't like the alignment system at all, if the character is bad at planning, then put that in personality description not "chaos".

Although, I do agree with you on that "Evil" is poorly defined. LE and CE burrows from the worst aspects of law and chaos, and neutral evil simply defines it as "not good, also not lawful or chaotic". That's a non-definition.

I define evil as sadism and hate. It is a cause, not a tool. And it's not just the absence of good. We have neutral for that.

Random NPC
2009-06-10, 12:58 AM
I've never found any problem with the axis.

I see good as giving and doing things for the benefits of others. Society, friends, family or whatever. Putting things before you. Evil is the opposite. Doing things for your own benefit without taking care of the needs of anyone

imp_fireball
2009-06-10, 01:00 AM
The Neutral axis is the most blatant example of obscurity in D&D, defined essentially as 'not evil' and 'not good'. But we won't go into that.

This thread's purely about evil.


It is a cause, not a tool.

By cliche those that use it as a tool are frequently assumed LE.

Is someone who is evil aware that he is evil - or on a more well defined level, aware that other people think he is evil?

How can you support a cause if you are not aware of it?

In D&D it takes a paladin smacking you to tell you that - and then other people think the paladin was in poor taste for not allowing the victim of his smite to understand that.

Even if the paladin argues that 'he never would understand', it'd be a court matter. Unless the paladin themselves were confused.

Mastikator
2009-06-10, 01:12 AM
Well, if evil is defined as sadism and hate, and as a cause. Then anyone who kills for pleasure or hate is killing for the cause of evil. Whether they are aware of this cause or not.

You can be aware of wanting to help people and be nice without being aware of having a cause for goodness. Because it's an implicit cause.

Halaster
2009-06-10, 01:16 AM
Well, from D&Ds alignment system, to WoD's natures, whenever a roleplaying game tries to squeeze behaviour into some kind of predefined categories with an impact on gameplay, the results are most likley sub-par. The reason being of course, that you can't just group everyone into 9 categories, people are too complex for that.

So I tend to see alignment purely as a game mechanic. The gods, or whoever, reward unselfish, helpful behaviour with a "good" sticker, and selfish, hurtful behaviour with a "bad" sticker, and thus divine magic and such reacts to people according to this grouping.

And I don't think anyone benefits from overanalyzing alignment. Simply make your calls as a GM as to what your characters' alignments are, tell the players, if they change, and be done with it. Play your bad guys the way you imagine them and slap the least inappropriate evil label on them.

Basically, the whole alignment thing is both so superfluous and so deeply ingrained in the rules that it is a) not worth bothering with and b) nearly impossible to get rid of. So, just run with it, and ignore it whenever you can.

Yora
2009-06-10, 04:17 AM
Good people are good to other people, evil people don't care if others get harmed.
Lawful people tend to accept the rules, though they may not like them, chaotic people follow their guts.

That's all definition alignment needs.

Halaster
2009-06-10, 04:42 AM
Probably true, but it shows the problem: alignment works only, if it isn't really saying very much about a person. If you try to do more with it than this simple definition, it becomes both stifling and vague. Can my chaotic character plan ahead? Can he maintain long-term relationships? Can an evil character love his dog? His wife and kids?

The answer is: alignment can't tell you that, without becoming cumbersome. So it's best to ignore the attempts at blowing it out of proportion that the authors occasionally undertake, and stick with Yora's advice.

Chrono22
2009-06-10, 05:57 AM
You are correct that nine alignments can't include everyone. But this homebrew alignment system introduced on the wotc boards can:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1181832
I just overlook his misuse of the word candid. He actually means conditional.

BTW- I don't agree with having alignment based spells and powers. I think it has some merit as a way of assisting character development, but that's it.

Halaster
2009-06-10, 06:19 AM
That system seems to change nothing at all, except for a written statement as to how far you're going to take your characters alignment. Big deal. Didn't need a word for that, really. And, more importantly, it doesn't answer the questions that came up here. On the contrary, it muddles the waters by adding a third axis on which you can be unsure where to put your character, instead of giving you some leeway. Massively counterproductive. I'll stay away from that one.

BobVosh
2009-06-10, 06:46 AM
Ah, this beat dead horse. Alignment system is so vague to the point you can convincingly argue almost any action to whatever alignment you like. Obviously there are a few exceptions, but that is hardly helpful.

Chrono22
2009-06-10, 06:55 AM
That system seems to change nothing at all, except for a written statement as to how far you're going to take your characters alignment. Big deal. Didn't need a word for that, really. And, more importantly, it doesn't answer the questions that came up here. On the contrary, it muddles the waters by adding a third axis on which you can be unsure where to put your character, instead of giving you some leeway. Massively counterproductive. I'll stay away from that one.
So... you don't accept the nine alignment system because it shoehorns characters into alignments, and people are more complex than that.

But you think adding a third axis, one that interprets the nine categories according to how the character individually embraces them, doesn't work because it muddles the waters.

If you want a concise alignment system, don't complain about it when it fails to be able to incorporate any character. I challenge you to create a character that could not be defined by alignment^3.

To the OP: alignment in dnd is further confused when you realize that good and evil exist as arbitrary and existent universal forces. Good outsiders are good creatures. Their goodness is part of their being... even when they are wholly committed to evil acts and agendas. Likewise, a "good" balor can never truly escape the inherent evil of himself.

Pronounceable
2009-06-10, 07:25 AM
The reason being of course, that you can't just group everyone into 9 categories, people are too complex for that.

Actually you can.


alignment works only, if it isn't really saying very much about a person.

Bingo! That's the point of alignment: a generalization that states a person's general moral and ethical (to use two keywords that get thrown around in such debates) tendencies in a very broad manner. No, seriously, alignments are broad.

Which is why you can actually classify everyone into one of the 9 categories. One usually has no trouble distinguishing someone's alignment (barring a certain infamous Batman's Alignment picture from the nets, which is dumbness incarnate anyway, everyone knows Batsy is LN) by the "gut feeling".

Or at least I don't.That fact might have something to do with me being chaotic.

SlyGuyMcFly
2009-06-10, 07:41 AM
Good people are good to other people, evil people don't care if others get harmed.
Lawful people tend to accept the rules, though they may not like them, chaotic people follow their guts.

This. It really, really doesn´t need to be made into anything more than this. I´ll repeat it the way a friend of mine explains it:

Good people are kind. Evil peeps are jerks. Lawful fellows try to play by the rules. Chaotic dudes don´t care for other people´s rules.

Anything more than that is an individual character´s personality and traits, and has little to do with alignment. However, it is true that certain alignments contain a larger number of a certain parsonality type than others. For instance, a hard-working, boring, modest, and timid clerk is unlikely to be Chaotic Evil, but he could be.

Xenogears
2009-06-10, 07:50 AM
This. It really, really doesn´t need to be made into anything more than this. I´ll repeat it the way a friend of mine explains it:

Good people are kind. Evil peeps are jerks. Lawful fellows try to play by the rules. Chaotic dudes don´t care for other people´s rules.

I always thought of the Law/Chaos thing as more of a Protection/Freedom thing. As in how much of your freedom will you give up to be safe? Are you willing to have secret police monitering your every move to ensure safety (Lawful) or would you rather risk the dangers of letting people go about their lives with no one watching them to make sure they aren't doing evil? (Chaos)


Anything more than that is an individual character´s personality and traits, and has little to do with alignment. However, it is true that certain alignments contain a larger number of a certain parsonality type than others. For instance, a hard-working, boring, modest, and timid clerk is unlikely to be Chaotic Evil, but he could be.

You mean DnD Ted Bundy basically?

DamnedIrishman
2009-06-10, 07:58 AM
is dumbness incarnate anyway, everyone knows Batsy is LN)

Batman is a vigilante.
That means he breaks the law.
He is LN how?

Xenogears
2009-06-10, 08:04 AM
Batman is a vigilante.
That means he breaks the law.
He is LN how?

Because he is trying to promote a lawful and orderly society? Because he thinks that its better for him to be monitering everyone to ensure their safety. The way I see it Lawful alignment has nothing to do with actually obeying the laws. A LG character certainly wouldn't obey laws that told him to kill babies and disobeying them would not make him NG or CG either. Even if he actively opposed the laws

Narmoth
2009-06-10, 08:07 AM
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r79/Narmoth/motivation%20posters/M5HQYMDJN2PKIND2EPTSZTKQLVEQ4EWI.jpg

Trizap
2009-06-10, 08:44 AM
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r79/Narmoth/motivation%20posters/M5HQYMDJN2PKIND2EPTSZTKQLVEQ4EWI.jpg

quoted for truthery.

Eloel
2009-06-10, 09:04 AM
Good people are good to other people, evil people don't care if others get harmed.

That's all definition alignment needs.

No. Your definition of Evil is actually Neutral. Evil people actively harm.

Coplantor
2009-06-10, 09:27 AM
No. Your definition of Evil is actually Neutral. Evil people actively harm.

Good people actively seeks to make the world a better place, meutral people does care about others beign harmed, they just dont have an urge to help others, pretty much like most people on the real world "How terrible, someone should do something".
Evil people just dont care about others, I see selfishness as the root of evil in DnD, "I'm first, my goals are first, you all are just means to my goals".

Halaster
2009-06-10, 09:41 AM
So... you don't accept the nine alignment system because it shoehorns characters into alignments, and people are more complex than that.

But you think adding a third axis, one that interprets the nine categories according to how the character individually embraces them, doesn't work because it muddles the waters.

If you want a concise alignment system, don't complain about it when it fails to be able to incorporate any character. I challenge you to create a character that could not be defined by alignment^3.

Although it's beside the point, I'll quickly answer that: no matter how many axises (?) you define, it always leaves something out. No alignment would be best, but since it exists, it should be left in as marginal a role as possible. Simplification works. If alignment is reduced to two very clear and simple points (helps/hurts, follows/ignores rules), you can keep it out of 90% of your roleplaying decisions, possibly all of them. Which is a good thing. Any further definition attempts just hurt. Unless you do what I usually do, and write about 1/2-1 page of text on your character before you play.

I like that diagram. Really covers all you need to know. The Batman debate on the other hand highlights the problem very much. Thanks folks. He breaks the law on principle. He's chaotic. What the principle is, why he does it, doesn't matter. He did it, and he gets the t-shirt. Saves you a world of exegesis.

Starbuck_II
2009-06-10, 10:05 AM
The Joker is chaotic evil and he frequently plans things. But at the same time, he doesn't conceal who he is.

In the dark knight, he flaunts himself to everyone. He's the Joker. Be very afraid. His beliefs make him a cold blooded anarchist (anarchy for fun, anarchy for the sake of your own taste in comedy) and the most blatant example of one.

That isn't exactly it.
He isn't doing it just for the that.
He wants the world to smile and laugh. He really thinks the world is too dreary and dull. If he gets rich along the way, why the hell not. He abhors the fact that Batman never laughs at his jokes.

All the villians of batman are crying our for help. He like Naruto is like a violent psychologist. They beat the person till they are cured.

Tengu_temp
2009-06-10, 10:35 AM
Good people are kind. Evil peeps are jerks.

As much as I don't like using links to TV Tropes instead of normal arguments, this is a perfect place to do that.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotNice
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil

Your point has been proven wrong.

Xenogears
2009-06-10, 10:38 AM
That isn't exactly it.
He isn't doing it just for the that.
He wants the world to smile and laugh. He really thinks the world is too dreary and dull. If he gets rich along the way, why the hell not. He abhors the fact that Batman never laughs at his jokes.

All the villians of batman are crying our for help. He like Naruto is like a violent psychologist. They beat the person till they are cured.

The problem with trying to analyze batman characters (or most american comic characters) is that they are written by so many different people that they have the worst case of multiple personality disorder known to man. In some cases the Joker is a raving lunatic that kills for fun. Other times he is a comical jokester who is in it for the lulz. So either CN or CE basically.

awa
2009-06-10, 10:58 AM
I would like to point out the biggest problem with alignment is that people aren’t one thing all the time imagine a Viking he could be true to his word wiling to die for his friends and family with out a second though but he also likes to go out and rape, murder and pillage. Now an individual like this could probably be called evil but the alignments as depicted don’t represent him well.

Xenogears
2009-06-10, 11:07 AM
I would like to point out the biggest problem with alignment is that people aren’t one thing all the time imagine a Viking he could be true to his word wiling to die for his friends and family with out a second though but he also likes to go out and rape, murder and pillage. Now an individual like this could probably be called evil but the alignments as depicted don’t represent him well.

Sure they do. He is evil. Chaos/Law requires a little more info to determine i think. Just because he is evil doesn't mean he can't have friends he is loyal to. It also doesn't matter that in his culture he isn't doing evil. By Dnd Standards he is Evil. The details of his personality are a RP thing. Alignment is about mechanics. They can basically ignore eachother for the most part

Pronounceable
2009-06-10, 11:10 AM
The Batman debate on the other hand highlights the problem very much.
For crying out loud;
Lawful =! law abiding

But yes, it does highlight the problem.


I would like to point out the biggest problem with alignment is that people aren’t one thing all the time imagine a Viking he could be true to his word wiling to die for his friends and family with out a second though but he also likes to go out and rape, murder and pillage. Now an individual like this could probably be called evil but the alignments as depicted don’t represent him well.

He's NE. Argument for TN is possible if evil acts are confined to a small part of his life.

Alignments are BROAD and not ABSOLUTE. There is a LOT OF ROOM for variation.

Mystic Muse
2009-06-10, 11:12 AM
Evil is not defined well because they don't expect the players to be evil.

also alignments NEED to be vague. would you rather read a 1/4 page thing about alignment or a ten page thing that tries to fit everything into it's rules?

oh and certain spells are inherently evil. mind-rape for instance.

Stormthorn
2009-06-10, 11:19 AM
Secondly, you are not incapable of planning because you're chaotic, you're chaotic because you're incapable of planning. But being incapable of planning doesn't necessarily mean chaotic, it's a detail in a larger picture. Personally I don't like the alignment system at all, if the character is bad at planning, then put that in personality description not "chaos".

Chaotic beings can plan. They might not make much sense to other but they cna plan.
Think about the most recent Batman movie.

Ravens_cry
2009-06-10, 11:20 AM
I would like to point out the biggest problem with alignment is that people aren’t one thing all the time imagine a Viking he could be true to his word wiling to die for his friends and family with out a second though but he also likes to go out and rape, murder and pillage. Now an individual like this could probably be called evil but the alignments as depicted don’t represent him well.
He sounds like an adventure. All in all though, if you wanted to place him somewhere, True Neural, with chaotic and evil leanings. I know that's the catch all, Hupplepuff house alignment, but that's why it's there.
Of course Vikings were Norse pirates. Nasty brutish men with fast ships. So I doubt they fit your romantic, noble savage, view of them. They raided for the quick bucks. They attacked monistaries because they were relatively undefended and they had gold silver and jewel encrusted reliquaries items that could be sold. They were sea bandits, thugs. They would demand protection money, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danegeld) and be as merciless as a drug cartel if they didn't get it.
Not that Norse weren't pretty violent themselves, but then so was most of Europe. Most of humanity.

Coplantor
2009-06-10, 11:21 AM
Chaotic beings can plan. They might not make much sense to other but they cna plan.
Think about the most recent Batman movie.

Or the not so recent yet very popular V for Vendetta

tribble
2009-06-10, 11:34 AM
I sum up evil this way:

Do you think you matter? No you do not! I matter.

doesnt matter if he's affable. the point is that, when all is said and done, he is the most important factor in the equation.

long john silver? NOT evil. he does some evil stuff, but he also risks a lot for Jim "Because I like you, boy." that's neutral, with evil leanings. I'm with CNSVNC on this one, the alignment system is very broad and nebulous- on purpose. we have the neutral zone for people who dont fit cleanly.

AzazelSephiroth
2009-06-10, 11:45 AM
Originally Posted by awa
I would like to point out the biggest problem with alignment is that people aren’t one thing all the time imagine a Viking he could be true to his word wiling to die for his friends and family with out a second though but he also likes to go out and rape, murder and pillage. Now an individual like this could probably be called evil but the alignments as depicted don’t represent him well.

He sounds like an adventure. All in all though, if you wanted to place him somewhere, True Neural, with chaotic and evil leanings. I know that's the catch all, Hupplepuff house alignment, but that's why it's there.
Of course Vikings were Norse pirates. Nasty brutish men with fast ships. So I doubt they fit your romantic, noble savage, view of them. They raided for the quick bucks. They attacked monistaries because they were relatively undefended and they had gold silver and jewel encrusted reliquaries items that could be sold. They were sea bandits, thugs. They would demand protection money, and be as merciless as a drug cartel if they didn't get it.
Not that Norse weren't pretty violent themselves, but then so was most of Europe. Most of humanity.

I have to disagree. He is most definitely evil. Any person who commits rape and or wanton destruction for payment is evil... the reason adventurers are allowed to wander is because they are harming evil beings and protecting or helping innocent people.
I have to say that the alignment argument is pretty silly in my humble opinion. The alignments were not created as set in stone, unchangable paths. They are guidelines and a tool to help player characters define how their characters would act or react to a given situation. The reason there are no rules describing how many people an evil person must kill or how the villian truly thinks is because the heroes are expected to be GOOD. Dungeons and Dragons is an RPG in which we pretend to be heroes! If you and your players wish to run a campaign based upon evil characters and their plots then that is your choice but look for supplements such the Book of Vile Darkness or third party books there are many that discuss the nature of evil... On the other hand I don't worry too much about it because I expect my players to be good (sometimes they are ***** about it) but in the end they help those in need. And they can expect my villians to be evil (some are more law abiding than others) but they will kill them just as quickly if they get the chance.

So is the alignment system vague? Yes- and I believe intentionaly.
Do we need a more complicated alignment system? No- I say stick with it and just use your own and your player's judgement.

Halaster
2009-06-10, 11:52 AM
@csvnc:
Did you read my posts? I know what lawful is. What I'm telling you is, that, as defined, it's crap.

It ought to be equal. Then you can just make a check on your list and actually roleplay, rather than have to debate this totally useless alignment system. That's just what I argue. Almost every problem the OP came up with could be solved, if lawful meant precisely "law abiding" and chaotic meant precisely "law breaking". Good and evil are less problematic, simply because humanity has a history of making such distinctions.

There are systems out there that go just this way. Warhammer FRP comes to mind:
Lawful - wants everything ordered
Good - wants everyone happy
Neutral - doesn't give a damn
Evil - wants all for himself
Chaotic - wants everything destroyed
And you can have just one of these, so you are either chaotic or evil, not both. That's a good alignment system. Enough to give you a world-shattering conflict, but not so much you actually have to worry about it when creating and playing your character. My longest played character was impulsive, disorganized, railed against authority and had a history of breaking the law. He had actually killed a few people who may or may not have deserved it. In the end, like almost all people, he remained neutral throughout, since he didn't show up on the alignment radar for any of the alignments. Me and my GM never for once wondered whether he might have changed alignment. We also never had an issue determining where the bad guys stood.
Plain, simple and workable, rather than cluttered up and useless. Of course, leaves most heroes neutral, some good. Fine.

Ravens_cry
2009-06-10, 12:21 PM
I disagree Halaster. Rampaging destructive "For the Hoard!" evil is just as evil as the Grand Visor scheming his way into power, quietly having his flunkies assassinating those in his way. One may disembowel you, the other may poison your tea, but they are both evil. Yet description wise they are completely different. Their methods and even most goals are completely different. One wants plunder, the other wants power.

Allowing a kind of array of Chatoic <->Lawful and Good<-> Evil allows much more variation. A chaotic who wants to destroy everything is evil, while one who wants to free people from slave hood is good. So pigeon holing them both as chaotic feels wrong, to me at least. At the same time, pigeon holing the emancipator with a noble paladin, not the stick up the arse one, but who actually tries to stop wrongs in his society within the rules of his society doesn't work either. Both are good, but would likely have long arguments over their methods and even goals.Both will likely agree slavery is wrong, but the paladin might actively work to get slavery abolished within the legal code, while the emancipator may be part of something analogous to the Underground Railway. Those are extreme examples, but they show the versatility of the array system. Your system creates more arguments, a greater infinite to be sure, because any player is going to ask, even if you can all agree on what constitutes each alignment,e, 'OK I do chaotic, but I also do good, which am I?'.

There will always be alignment arguments, for the same reason there are arguments on the nature ethics and morality at all. Defining them absolutely for every action and motivation is impossible. But what can be done is an agreement can be made within a group, consciously and unconsciously, on what constitutes what.

hamishspence
2009-06-10, 12:54 PM
Within 3.0/3.5, there are many sources expanding on evil.

Savage Species- points out an evil being can be kind, affectionate, loving- to their in-group. But cruel and vicious to those not of it.

Champions of Ruin- points out that the Well Intentioned Extremist can be very Evil- enough evil acts make for an evil alignment regardless of the goals, and the good results.

Fiendish Codex 2- points out that if you commit enough evil acts, then change alignment back to Good, but never fix them, then (assuming Lawful) even if you are Good, you go to Nine Hells when you die. It stresses that Evil acts mark the soul, and this mark requires a lot of work to remove.

Exemplars of Evil- outlines personality traits, giving a bit more idea as to whether your Villain is lawful or chaotic. Duplicity is associated with chaos, arrogance with law, etc.

So, there is a lot of variance in portrayal of Evil within D&D.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-06-10, 01:04 PM
Because sources are helpful:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

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

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

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.
Good and Evil are not about motivations, they are about methods. Good people choose means that protect life; Evil people choose means that destroy life.

Let's say a character wants a Sword +1, but the merchant is asking too much money for it. The character does not need the sword, but it would be nice to have.

A Good character would find a way to acquire it without harming the merchant; maybe work out a barter-based deal, or offer to work off the debt later. If the merchant appeared to be particularly wealthy, Good might even steal the sword - provided he didn't have to kill the merchant to do it.

An Evil character would find the easiest path available, even if it meant harming the merchant. Kill him on the spot, hold his loved ones hostage, or break into the shop and murder the merchant in his sleep - so that nobody can figure out that Evil took the sword.

A canny Evil character might be able to figure out a way to dupe the merchant without harming him at all; a dumb Good character may rage and bluster in an attempt to scare the merchant out of his sword - but he would never actually hurt the innocent merchant. That is a question of selecting amongst possible options, not Alignment.

nightwyrm
2009-06-10, 01:29 PM
The problem with alignment is not that it's ill defined, vague and broad. The problem is that there are a number of very well defined mechanical consequences that results from a character being grouped into one of the alignment categories. When your character is hit by a holy/unholy word, it really matters which of those ill-defined categories your character falls under. And if you and your dm don't agree what alignment your character falls under, game grinds to a halt while the group argues.

Vague grouping with no mechanical consequences? That's fine.

Well-defined grouping with well-defined consequences? That's fine too.

Vague grouping with well-defined consequences? Leads to constant arguments.

Jayabalard
2009-06-10, 01:56 PM
Don't get another alignment debate in here, we have enough...Then why post at all?


And if you and your dm don't agree what alignment your character falls under ON ANYTHING, game grinds to a halt while the group argues.This isn't a problem specific to alignment.

Mystic Muse
2009-06-10, 01:59 PM
This isn't a problem specific to alignment.

it wouldn't be if that's what the person ACTUALLY said.

hamishspence
2009-06-10, 02:06 PM
Sometimes alignment of the act matters more than alignmnet of the character- paladin who commits evil act but not severe enough to change alignment being the classic example.

Some questions on "what constitutes an evil act" can be partially resolved by looking at the source material.

According to BoED- motive alone will not make a normally Evil act non-evil. Nor large scale good consequences. D&D is not utilitarian- murder to save the world is still murder and will cause a Fall.

But what is a Normally Evil Act?

Anything called out in BoVD as EVil, or Fiendish Codex 2 as Corrupt.

Ravens_cry
2009-06-10, 02:13 PM
The problem with alignment is not that it's ill defined, vague and broad. The problem is that there are a number of very well defined mechanical consequences that results from a character being grouped into one of the alignment categories. When your character is hit by a holy/unholy word, it really matters which of those ill-defined categories your character falls under. And if you and your dm don't agree what alignment your character falls under, game grinds to a halt while the group argues.

Vague grouping with no mechanical consequences? That's fine.

Well-defined grouping with well-defined consequences? That's fine too.

Vague grouping with well-defined consequences? Leads to constant arguments.
Idea.
Make all the morality and ethics consequences spells, divine spells, with wizards and other arcane casters simply not having them.
That way, it is a divine judgement, and if it doesn't work when the cleric tries to cast it, that means the goddess or god you worship doesn't think they are evil/good/lawful/chaotic. It's still subjective, but with strong authority. It's really mostly a fluff adjustment, but I think, I hope, it may resolve some of the issues. Thoughts?

hamishspence
2009-06-10, 02:17 PM
Problem is, subjective morality is a major leap. Can lead to oddities such as two LG paladins Smiting Evil on each other because "in they eyes of my god, that guy is Evil."

D&D defaults to objective- no cultural relativity here- Act X is evil even if culture doesn't think it is.

ZeroNumerous
2009-06-10, 02:27 PM
oh and certain spells are inherently evil. mind-rape for instance.

Not really. Mind-rape the villain into being a good guy. Cause? Good. Result? Good. Methods? Distinctly neutral. The only argument for a non-sapient being being good/evil/lawful/chaotic is via inherent law/good/chaos/evil in it's creation. Like Animate Dead in RAW.

hamishspence
2009-06-10, 02:30 PM
Its not clear why spells/powers are inherently evil- can be several different things. Mind Seed is evil but Memory Modification is not- possible because you are wiping out the original personality.

Mindrape may be evil because in the process it causes "unnecessary suffering"

The similar but not identical Sanctify The Wicked may be non-evil because it avoids this.

Ravens_cry
2009-06-10, 02:44 PM
Problem is, subjective morality is a major leap. Can lead to oddities such as two LG paladins Smiting Evil on each other because "in they eyes of my god, that guy is Evil."

D&D defaults to objective- no cultural relativity here- Act X is evil even if culture doesn't think it is.
An oddity true, but in the default D&D at least, Good gods tend to be chummy to a certain degree. So it's an unlikely scenario.

nightwyrm
2009-06-10, 02:45 PM
Idea.
Make all the morality and ethics consequences spells, divine spells, with wizards and other arcane casters simply not having them.
That way, it is a divine judgement, and if it doesn't work when the cleric tries to cast it, that means the goddess or god you worship doesn't think they are evil/good/lawful/chaotic. It's still subjective, but with strong authority. It's really mostly a fluff adjustment, but I think, I hope, it may resolve some of the issues. Thoughts?

I'm not sure it'd solve anything. The DM plays the gods so basically it becomes "DM fiat". You'd still have a DM applying mechanical effects based on his subjective interpretation of alignment that the players might disagree with.

And once you introduce (in-game) subjective alignment based on the gods, why have alignment at all. Vecna subjectively deciding that he's LG and sponsoring a bunch of evil-smiting paladins to attack the other gods makes alignment meaningless.

hamishspence
2009-06-10, 02:49 PM
Or, for that matter, non-deity paladins, if you are going with the idea of them not getting power from the divine. If their two cultures differ sufficiently, they may end up fighting.

Or, if you allow different "what counts as evil" views to be equally valid, one paladin will be doing large amounts of evil by the other paladin's standards, and maybe even counting as Evil alignment.

For example: Burn the plague village to minimise casualties to the continent. Evil enough to institute instant change to Evil alignment, according to 2nd ed PHB. Yet by some people's standards, its Good, and failure to do so would be negligence on an epic scale, and Evil.

Set
2009-06-10, 02:53 PM
Not really. Mind-rape the villain into being a good guy. Cause? Good. Result? Good. Methods? Distinctly neutral.

Destroying someone's self and reconstructing them as someone on 'your side?'

Distinctly not neutral, IMO, well over the line into evil. If the evil dude was repentent and begged the PC to convert him magically, because he was afraid he'd slip back into his wicked ways, sure, that's a person *choosing* to give up their free will, which still doesn't make it right to take it from them, but is a heck of a lot less evil than strapping them down and singing, 'be good, for goodness sake!'

Perhaps the end result is 'good,' in that there is one less evil dude in the world and one more good dude, but the means were distinctly evil.

There's plenty of other wonky examples.

Animating Dead. [Evil]. Ordering the dead in a village to rise up from their graves and save their descendents from the hobgoblin hordes? Not so bad. Keeping them around to carry off your loot afterwards? Back to bad again.

Summon Monster (Hound Archon). [Good]. Ordering the Hound Archon to attack a busload of nuns and orphans? Not so good.

Casting Sound Burst. No alignment descriptor. Casting Sound Burst over the heads of a rioting crowd to stop a lynching? Kinda Lawful, kinda Good. (unless it was the party Rogue being lynched for pickpocketing half the town and sleeping with the pastor's daughter, in which case it's more self-serving...) Casting Sound Burst in the middle of a crowded market to start a stampede, so that you can loot the overturned apple carts in the confusion? Evil with a dash of Chaotic.

Using Deathwatch in a time of war to 'triage' and determine which fallen soldiers are beyond help, so that your healers can most effectively save the lives of those who can be saved? Using an [Evil] spell to do Good.

If alignment weren't subjective, at times, if it were purely mechanical, based off of some chart to be ticked off, then Summon Monster would be the ultimate alignment-modifying bit of munchkinry.

'Okay, I cast Animate Dead this morning, that was 4 levels of [Evil], so I need to cast Protection from Evil four times, or Summon two Celestial Giant Bees to get 4 levels of [Good] to cancel that out. And two Hail Pelors, and an hour of charitable volunteering at the temple, for good measure. Wouldn't want the gods to think I'm gaming the system! Amen.'

Oracle_Hunter
2009-06-10, 02:54 PM
Sometimes alignment of the act matters more than alignmnet of the character- paladin who commits evil act but not severe enough to change alignment being the classic example.

Some questions on "what constitutes an evil act" can be partially resolved by looking at the source material.

According to BoED- motive alone will not make a normally Evil act non-evil. Nor large scale good consequences. D&D is not utilitarian- murder to save the world is still murder and will cause a Fall.

But what is a Normally Evil Act?

Anything called out in BoVD as EVil, or Fiendish Codex 2 as Corrupt.
Wow. BoED and BoVD must be astoundingly stupid books.

Particularly for Good/Evil there are few generic acts that can be classed as Good or Evil. Pretty much all of them require some context - why did you kill him? Was he armed? Why did you lie to him? Hell, "murder" can be a Good act - killing a fellow citizen before he can kill a child, for example. If motives were irrelevant, than no Good character could kill anyone - they would be disrespecting the sanctity of life.

Remember: alignment is not a straight-jacket; it is supposed to be a guide for determining reactions to novel situations.

The only way that BoED makes sense is if you apply it to Paladins alone; Paladins have a Code which extends beyond mere alignment considerations.

EDIT:

Not really. Mind-rape the villain into being a good guy. Cause? Good. Result? Good. Methods? Distinctly neutral. The only argument for a non-sapient being being good/evil/lawful/chaotic is via inherent law/good/chaos/evil in it's creation. Like Animate Dead in RAW.
More accurately, Mind Rape is Not-Good at best. Remember that "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" is part of the Good alignment; if mind rape doesn't violate that, then I have no idea what would.

nightwyrm
2009-06-10, 02:55 PM
This isn't a problem specific to alignment.

Did you even read my post?

Alignment causes arguments because the rule books leaves a lot to the DM's and player's own interpretation. The alignment categories were written as a guideline and not a straightjacket so it's open to vagueness.

Fireball deals 1d6 damage per caster level. That's not a guideline open to multiple interpretations. But the rules don't say "if you steal, you are chaotic."

hamishspence
2009-06-10, 02:56 PM
Deathwatch is an oddity, being on the class list of a class that must be Good (healer) and a PRC that Falls if it ever commits an evil act (Slayer of Domiel)

It wasn't Evil in 3.0, and I think it should have been errataed as not Evil in 3.5- otherwise it wouldn't be on an Exalted PRC's class list.

EDIT: Oraclehunter,
killing a person about to commit mass murder is not murder- its Defense of Others. BoVD points this out.

Murder is a much narrower category that excludes self-defence, defensive war, defence of others from an immediate and lethal threat. A police sniper shooting a villain who has a gun trained on someone and is about to murder them, is not a murderer.

Fiendish Codex 2 is the book which calls it out as Corrupt- that is, evil under any and all circumstances.

BoED and Fiendish Codex 2 also call ot Torture as Evil (BoED), and Corrupt (FC2)

nightwyrm
2009-06-10, 02:59 PM
Wow. BoED and BoVD must be astoundingly stupid books.


They are. Basically, they're only useful as an alignment guide if your game is a clear black-and-white morality, evil is vile-and-corrupt and good is idealistic-and-holy type of game. Not that such games is bad, it's just not every game is like that.

Set
2009-06-10, 03:03 PM
Vecna subjectively deciding that he's LG and sponsoring a bunch of evil-smiting paladins to attack the other gods makes alignment meaningless.

There's nothing in the SRD to prevent that very scenario. Although Vecna wouldn't have to 'decide that he's LG' to sponsor a bunch of evil-smiting Paladins. He could either lie to them, pretending to be a LG god, or come up with a *completely* out there rationale for why a Paladin would follow him. Clerics have to be within one alignment step of their diety, but Paladins, from what I'm seeing in the SRD, don't have that restriction.

Bane or Hextor would be better choices to sponsor a group of Paladins. If anyone brings up the tacky question of why the god gets to be evil, when his holy knights are held to a higher standard, he trots out every parents favorite axiom, sometimes phrased as 'Do what I say, not what I do.' and other times as 'Because *I'm* the grown-up!'

In a world where some philosophers believe that gods draw power from their worshippers, and, to some extent, are defined and shaped by the beliefs of their worshippers, a group of (possibly sadly deluded) good people could choose to try to *convert a god* by creating a good-aligned faith devoted to an evil god, trying to 'tame the great beast' or whatever.

On the other hand, the Paladin isn't allowed to associate with those of evil alignment, so if he regularly hangs out with his evil god, he's gonna be on double-secret probation...

hamishspence
2009-06-10, 03:03 PM
again, the sources that draw from them (Champions of Ruin, Heroes of Horror) allow for leeway, in the sense that the person who is Evil by these standards, can be an Anti-hero.

BoVD can certainly be used to play Vile villains, but it can also be uses to tell you what acts make your hero into an anti-hero.

nightwyrm
2009-06-10, 03:05 PM
More accurately, Mind Rape is Not-Good at best. Remember that "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" is part of the Good alignment; if mind rape doesn't violate that, then I have no idea what would.

But yet, mass slaughtering kobolds, goblins and orc tribes is respecting the "dignity of sentient beings"? So Yeah.....

Anyways, whenever there's an alignment thread, I just think it's important to take a step back and recognize that alignment originated primarily so that the PCs can kill things and take their stuff without having to feel bad about themselves.

hamishspence
2009-06-10, 03:08 PM
BoED "Violence is acceptable" but within cetain limitations.

Attacking the orcs who haven't been shown to have done anything wrong- Not ok.

Attacking the orcs who are actively raiding- ok.

Attacking orc non-combatants- women, children, etc. Not OK.

Attacking hostile orc warriors, when you have just cause- OK.

And even then, you are expected to offer quarter, give it when asked, treat prisoners properly and not kill them out of hand.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-06-10, 03:09 PM
They are. Basically, they're only useful as an alignment guide if your game is a clear black-and-white morality, evil is vile-and-corrupt and good is idealistic-and-holy type of game. Not that such games is bad, it's just not every game is like that.
Now, that's not exactly what I meant. D&D uses an Objective Morality system - it is a Black & White game, by definition.

OK, there is Gray - Neutrality - but that is a third color, not a mixture of Black & White.

My point is that, if hamishspence is correct about the books, then WotC has ignored their Core description of alignment, including all of TSR's work in alignment.

Heck, his later edit shows that to be the case - rather than letting alignment be a broad set of principles, it has tried to make them a Code of Laws. The "Murder" definition has massive flaws - what if you taunt someone into attacking you; is it still Good if you kill them? What about disproportionate response - bringing a gun to a knife fight? Those are not questions of alignment, those are questions of law.

"Respect for Life" means just what it says - when choosing actions, you try to preserve life when possible. You don't stab people in bar brawls, you don't instigate violence, and you don't brutally repress goblins until they attack just to claim "Defensive War" when you wipe them out. Good is supposed to be a fluid concept; not undefined to be sure, but certainly not a rigid code of conduct.

@Nightwyrm
hamishspence is correct. Genocide is never Good; it does not show Respect for Life. When adventurers are hired to kill goblins, it is typically because the goblins have been raiding human settlements and killing people. Ideally, a Good party would find a way to drive out or pacify the goblins but, thanks to their Evil alignment, it is unlikely that such an option is easy to find.

Alignment was likely introduced to encourage the Good vs. Evil conflict that is prevalent in Fantasy literature. It certainly wasn't a device designed to insulate players from making moral decisions; quite the opposite, I would say.

hamishspence
2009-06-10, 03:29 PM
I think it was intended to be very Geneva Convention-ish- the details on "you must accept surrenders" "you must treat prisoners properly" "you must not torture" all fit.

Also, it is very strict on "lesser of two evils" like- if you sacrifice somebody else "to save the world" it still counts as an evil act.

Fits in well with the more uncompromising standard in some fantasy, especially David Gemmell books:

In Winter Warriors the person has good reason to think that killing the baby will prevent it from being used later in a human sacrifice that will lead to Demons Ruling The World. But he doesn't do it.

In Deathstalker Druss and Sieben discuss the issue of enemy army offering you the chance to save the city be sacrificing a child- agains, morally wrong.

Set
2009-06-10, 03:35 PM
And even then, you are expected to offer quarter, give it when asked, treat prisoners properly and not kill them out of hand.

Back in the 'good old days' (pre 3rd edition) you could just Polymorph Other them into good-aligned critters (elves or fey or whatever) and send them on their way, with shiny new memories of having always been elves once they fail their save and 'mentally become the new species'...

That would open a whole new 'conversion at swordpoint' can of worms. 'Okay, we can slaughter you all, or you can stand here and let our druid turn you all into dryads and satyrs. Don't resist. If you make a saving throw, you get the pointy end of the sword.'

hamishspence
2009-06-10, 03:38 PM
In the same "good old days" sacrificing the few to save the many was definitely not OK-

enough to lead to an immediate alignment change to Evil for the paladin who burns the plague village, in PHB and DMG 2nd ed.

Jayabalard
2009-06-10, 05:00 PM
But yet, mass slaughtering kobolds, goblins and orc tribes is respecting the "dignity of sentient beings"? So Yeah.....Mass slaughtering them is also non-good at best. I don't really see what you're trying to get at.


Not really. Mind-rape the villain into being a good guy. Cause? Good. Result? Good. Methods? Distinctly neutral. I can't agree there; it's evil pretty much all the way.


it wouldn't be if that's what the person ACTUALLY said.I don't really understand your response in the context of what you've quoted. Did you mean "it wouldn't be a problem specific to alignment if that's what the person ACTUALLY said." ... that still doesn't really make any sense.


Did you even read my post?Yes.

Just a helpful hint, you might want to double check the forum rules under Major Infractions: Flaming: Specific things you cannot do on this message board that might be allowed elsewhere.

Lots of things are open to interpretation, some things more than others. This isn't, in and of itself, a bad thing. If you have a group of people who let the game grind to a halt because they have to stop and argue over something, the problem isn't the fault of the rules that require interpretation... the problem is due to the people involved.

Thoughtbot360
2009-06-11, 04:23 AM
"Screw the rules (of society), I am evil!" Evil says.


*in Seto Kaiba voice*: Screw the Rules, I'm weak to Good Spells!


Doesn't the PHB state that alignment is not a straight jacket?

It also states that Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Monks, and Paladins all suffer some kind of penalty for switching to prohibited alignments. In fact, this is the big reason alignment comes up so often-it keeps getting into the rules! Even in OD&D where the only three alignments are Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral, each alignment has its own languages, and since there is only a 20% chance of a nonhuman knowing the Common tongue, teams tend to stick with a single alignment to compensate for that.

I mean, we might as well start a thread about why a 30-year old game system has a "Neutral" language as much as worrying about the division of evil. In fact, evil is only divided over these same three ethical alignments.

hamishspence
2009-06-11, 12:28 PM
I think its been a long standing trend that, no matter how good the intended consequences (save a continent, for example) the evilness of the act :

(burn the village of innocent people, some of whom would have survived their highly contagious plague)

is unaffected. Intent is not enough. Consequences are not enough. That was the way it was in 2nd ed, that is the way it is in BoED.

Since alignment is based on acts, not intent, you can have an anti-heroic Evil character whose desire to protect people leads him into doing evil acts in order to protect them.