Evil Standards?

[jedipotter]

Well, everyone would say good has standards. There are things you can do that would make you non-good if you did them. The rulebooks are full of examples too.

A good person is just fine...until they take action X, then their whole world crumbles and they are told ''you did X, your not good anymore''.


But what about Evil?

Are then any acts that might make a person not be evil anymore?


What acts on a cosmic level might have a person not be evil?

What acts on a personal level might have a person not be evil?

Thoughts?

[Zanos]

I'd say that sacrificing yourself (and not others) for some good cause would probably cause you to not be Evil anymore, depending on what the cause was and how Evil you were before.

Noble self-sacrifice is just so opposed to everything that Evil stands for that I don't see how someone could do it and still be Evil.

[iceman10058]

deffinately anything that would help others without it being equally beneficial to yourself. this allows evil leaders to be kind to the people he rules over but horrible to the countries he invades on a regular basis

[Kaiu Keiichi]

Check out Objectivism and it's entire philosophy of rational, reductionist self interest. Literally, to an evil person, no one else exists except in their utility to that person. Sociopathy and narcissism are good places to start for transcultural definitions of evil.

[Vhaidara]

I could see a few circumstances. Mostly if you're doing it to be spiteful.

Say there's a hellbred paladin (race who's souls have already been damned so they quest for near impossible redemption). He attempts to sacrifice himself in [glorious act of self-sacrifice]. However, the villain, to spite him, jumps in and shoves him out of the way, denying him his redemption.

Basically, if it is selfless sacrifice, it's good. But sometimes the evil guy just wants to be a massive troll.

[hamishspence]

genuinely repenting all one's evil acts is probably the only one I can think of.

"Sacrificing your life" isn't necessarily good if you're doing it for a villain:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0112.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html

Truly forgiving an enemy, is mentioned as something an Evil character generally wouldn't do, in Champions of Valor - however, "Forgiving" is listed as one possible villain personality trait in Exemplars of Evil.


Check out Objectivism and it's entire philosophy of rational, reductionist self interest.
That seems more Neutral than Evil to me - especially since it forbids sacrificing others for oneself.

[Slipperychicken]

Donating all your stuff to charity might do it, assuming good cause and intent. I could see such sacrifice helping to facilitate an alignment shift.

Volunteering to do lots of charitable work could help. As part of penance over a long period of time, that could certainly pull someone up the alignment chart.

Taking in street kids to help them live good lives would probably do a lot for your soul.

Selflessly embarking on a crusade against evilness could do it, assuming the character was actually a hero and not just a violent bigot (that is, more like Spiderman, less like the Punisher).



A good person is just fine...until they take action X, then their whole world crumbles and they are told ''you did X, your not good anymore''.


Who said someone tells them? Most people would only notice when they get their alignment checked. It would be kind of like STDs: You'd only notice a few months down the line when you get tested, or if you start noticing symptoms, and even then it's hard to be 100% sure how it happened.

[hamishspence]

If a character is already evil, and actually wants to stay evil (but has an altruistic streak) I can't see a Good deed making much of a difference to their alignment if they are genuinely unrepentant.

"Accidentally slipping into Neutral alignment" isn't really a worry for villains, the way it is for heroes.

[Sam K]

I dont think there are many "one shot" actions that could change you from being evil. Simply failing at being evil doesn't make you good (or even neutral); TRYING to eat babies and kill puppies and failing is probably still evil (and hillarious).

I suppose a significant sacrifice to stop overreaching evil at little or no gain for yourself could "redeem" you, in the style of Darth Vader turning on the emperor, but it's going to be hard to accidentally become good unless you simply dont have it in you to be mean to people.

[Brookshw]

I like this idea! Reminds me of the evil league of evil in Dr. Horrible.

[zlefin]

It's likely to be somewhat dm dependent; as some dms view evil as comic-book evil; and might push people to neutral for not randomly killing people and kicking puppies.

Perhaps for fairness, using a standard for evil that really does require work to maintain should be used.

[Bonzai]

The problem with Evil, is that it is judged by it's means as well as it's intent. So an Evil character must not only commit a great act of kindness, but have absolutely pure intent as well.

John Constantine? He spent a life time trying to balance the scales against his one sin, but his intent was selfish and therefore it was disregarded. Only when he sacrificed himself for the good of another was he granted redemption.

Darth Vader? He also sacrificed himself and renounced his evil ways. This turned out to be enough to redeem himself.

So I would say that it would require a real and genuine renouncement of his evil ways first and foremost. Going through the motions won't cut it.

Second it would come with some sort of sacrifice or penance. No hail Mary's or confessions (though it could be a start). It has to be a major undertaking with significant sacrifice and hardship on the characters part.

Lastly, his character needs to be consistent with no re-lapses.

[OldTrees1]

Personally I do not think 1 action should change your alignment regardless of your previous alignment. An action becomes discordant with a character's personality long before it is severe enough to cause an alignment shift on its own.

However if a character's personality has been shifting towards an alignment boundary, then a single action could have it cross that boundary.

In practice this means character progression from one alignment to another requires time/several actions.

Good slips to neutral when it starts to consistently abandon the high road.
Evil slips to neutral when it starts to consistently avoid the low road.
Neutral slips to good/evil when it starts to consistently hold to the high/low road.

[hamishspence]

That's the recommendation DMG makes - though it does allow for exceptions.

[Red Fel]

The problem with Evil, is that it is judged by it's means as well as it's intent. So an Evil character must not only commit a great act of kindness, but have absolutely pure intent as well.

This. I have always felt that Good is defined by actions, and Evil by intents. Good has lines it cannot cross, regardless of the justification; Evil has no such boundaries. That's what makes it Evil.

Rather, Evil is limited by intent. An Evil character can do the noblest of things for the most sinister of causes, and still be Evil. It is only when he acts with complete selflessness, truly puts others before himself, that he risks his alignment.

Or when he willingly receives an Atonement spell or gets non-Evil-mindraped by an Emissary of Barachiel or somesuch. Because Good does that.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Who said someone tells them? Most people would only notice when they get their alignment checked. It would be kind of like STDs: You'd only notice a few months down the line when you get tested, or if you start noticing symptoms, and even then it's hard to be 100% sure how it happened.

Alignments are STDs... This. Explains. Everything.

Too bad the doctors at WotC and on these boards are all pretty bad at explaining which one you have, or maybe we could help those of us who have a bad one and don't realize it.

[Segev]

Check out Objectivism and it's entire philosophy of rational, reductionist self interest. Literally, to an evil person, no one else exists except in their utility to that person. Sociopathy and narcissism are good places to start for transcultural definitions of evil.

You should take your own advice. That's not what Objectivism is about. If it were, Rand wouldn't spend so much time in Atlas Shrugged decrying the demands moochers make on the producers. After all, to the moochers, the producers have no purpose other than to serve them.

The point of Objectivism is to recognize the right of all men to the fruit of their own labors. It recognizes that humans always will pursue their own self-interest, and seeks to harness that fundamental truth for the greater good by rewarding behaviors that produce more for everybody. Said behaviors are the rational pursuit of one's own needs, and trading the surplus for things others do better and more prolifically than you could, yourself. Rationally, supporting others' rights to their work encourages their continued pursuit of making more cool and useful stuff that they will then trade with you.

The beauty of Objectivism is that it is an LG philosophy with strong LN leanings. It can be twisted towards evil, but generally the rational aspect will prevent full-on enslavements simply because slavery is less economically viable in the long run. People work harder and better when they are free to seek the best rewards for their labor.


More on topic, if you're somehow empowered by evil, you typically will lose your powers for failures. For costs and flaws you cannot or will not force others to bear rather than owning up to it yourself. Evil does not reward responsibility; evil rewards success and the appearance of success. The crucial thing that would be "Good acts causing evil people to lose their alignment" would be when they fail...and do not find somebody else to take the blame.

Evil will sacrifice others for their own gain, and will demand of others that they make sacrifices for their gain. Evil sees others as owing them, or at least as being exploitable (with "owing them" being an excuse for said exploitation). If evil refuses to hurt others, and loses because of it, they will be punished for their failure by loss of their power. If evil fails, they may still be punished if they cannot find a scapegoat to take the blame, but their willingness to go further and hurt MORE people for even less relative gain will keep them empowered by evil.

It's actually a lot easier to paint the "good makes you lose your evil powers" scenario because it has overt, non-magical symptoms. Evil is often mistaken for powerful, because it is willing to abuse power. Good is often mistaken for weakness because it seems to represent a lack of will to use power one has. So the evil who is "slipping" into neutrality due to good actions loses his power first simply by appearing weak. By failing or struggling when he could have "easily" won by some expedient, evil means.

Alternatively, both alignments are about sacrifice and hard choices, to some degree. Good is about sacrifice of the self and hard choices of easy, personal gain versus the good of others. Evil is about sacrifice of others and hard choices about what one is willing to give up to get what one wants. The evil person, too, must be willing to part with things he values for things he values more; in his case, he must be willing to give up on caring about others more than he does himself and his own selfish goals.

[BWR]

John Constantine? He spent a life time trying to balance the scales against his one sin, but his intent was selfish and therefore it was disregarded. Only when he sacrificed himself for the good of another was he granted redemption.

You're talking about that godawful movie, aren't you?
Please, just disregard it. It absolutely butchered the character and the setting. JC is pretty much the poster boy for Chaotic Neutral. Sacrificing himself for others isn't really in his nature. He sacrifices other people, usually friends. Not from maliciousness, but more because they get caught up in his schemes and get the short end of the stick, and sometimes from necessity. He'll generally fight the bad stuff but mostly because he doesn't think the world needs to get worse than it already is rather than some ridiculous godworshipping stuff.

[hamishspence]

The beauty of Objectivism is that it is an LG philosophy with strong LN leanings. It can be twisted towards evil, but generally the rational aspect will prevent full-on enslavements simply because slavery is less economically viable in the long run. People work harder and better when they are free to seek the best rewards for their labor.

Given the overt "sacrificing yourself for a stranger is a Bad Thing" theme - as well as a very strong "individualism good" theme - TN fits more neatly, for me.

I could see Rilmani (TN outsider exemplars) fitting it better than, say, formians - which are LN and not at all individualist.

[Abithrios]

I would argue that certain acts are good and certain acts are evil. Giving money to the poor is good. Stealing money from the poor is evil. Killing without reasonable cause is very evil. Taking risks to save someone without reasonable cause is very good. Being nice to people is slightly good. Being a jerk is slightly evil.

If you are doing more good stuff than evil stuff, or the good stuff you do is more good than the evil stuff is evil, then you are not evil. If the balance is sufficiently close, then you qualify for neutral status. If you do one thing that is strongly aligned, it may be indicative of your alignment, or it could be a weird outlier. If everything else you do is the opposite alignment, then it will not really change your alignment.

If your class does not have a strict code of conduct, you are free to simply be "on average" whatever alignment you choose. For example, following the occasional law would not make a barbarian lose their ability to rage. On the other hand, it would be unbecoming for an evil paladin to feed a poor person.


It's likely to be somewhat dm dependent; as some dms view evil as comic-book evil; and might push people to neutral for not randomly killing people and kicking puppies.

Perhaps for fairness, using a standard for evil that really does require work to maintain should be used.

There does not have to be any meaningful randomness to it. If you are not doing evil things, in what way are you still evil?

[atomicwaffle]

I've always defined good/evil as; do you primarily think about yourself first? (evil) or do you think of others first? (good)

That's the barometer i usually use. And yes, by this definition 'Chaotic Neutral' is evil but its a stupid alignment anyways.

[BrokenChord]

I've always defined good/evil as; do you primarily think about yourself first? (evil) or do you think of others first? (good)

That's the barometer i usually use. And yes, by this definition 'Chaotic Neutral' is evil but its a stupid alignment anyways.

If you think Chaotic Neutral is stupid, your players are definitely that type. I am so sorry for you.

That said, I'd recommend an adjustment to your barometer. As a general rule, putting yourself first in terms of sheer survival is neutral. It's also neutral to put your own low-end happiness and enjoyment before that of others. Evil is non-equivalency; making people suffer or die just to make your life better, or making them go hungry for your amusement. That sort of thing. Evil isn't "sorry, dude, only one of us is going to be able to live and I'm not ready to die", it's "well, I could walk away and we'll both live, but then you'd turn me in to the authorities, so I think I'll kill you instead."

Unless, of course, getting turned into the authorities/other example situation that doesn't sound so lawful is equivalent to a death sentence to you or the people you care about. Even then, though, a neutral person ought to just knock the other guy out and run rather than kill him.

[Hyena]

Donating all your stuff to charity might do it, assuming good cause and intent. I could see such sacrifice helping to facilitate an alignment shift.
Incidentally, a lot of churches in my country is built on the money of the Bros, russian mafia. So yeah, that can do.

[Flickerdart]

It's easy to frame this in terms of game theory. If you're familiar with the terms, skip the spoiler.

In a long-term Prisoner's Dilemma type game free of coercive forces between parties, there are essentially three basic strategies that grow out of one another:

Charity: This strategy always cooperates. This is Good - the goal is to maximize the score of your partner, even if it costs you your own score (such as when that partner betrays you). Charitable actors may engage in retribution (see below) but they will always forgive, returning to their cooperative state.
Retribution: This strategy cooperates as long as the opponent does, but once the opponent betrays, will betray the opponent in turn forever. This is Neutral - an eye for an eye. Two Neutral systems working with one another will never turn on each other even though both are self-interested actors, because their goal is maximizing their own score and in this situation, the best long-term score is reached through cooperation with a willing partner.
Selfishness: This strategy takes a look at the choices. If I am cooperative and so is my partner, we both get a bit. But if I betray and he cooperates, I get more and he gets less! This strategy attempts not only to get many points, but to get the most points at the expense of another. Selfishness tends to be beneficial in the short run, but once your partner has got a whiff of your character, neither of you win anything because both of you perpetually betray. Selfish types may occasionally cooperate in order to throw others off their scent, but this isn't a pattern.


While it's obvious that Good acts make an Evil character "rise," this model adds some nuance to the difference between Good and Neutral and Evil acts. An Evil character isn't just selfish, and being selfish isn't Evil. An Evil character shoots the man behind him in the foot, twists the knife, adds insult to injury - anything to get ahead not only by becoming better but by leaving everyone else worse. Cooperating with another person just because your interests coincide actually moves you closer to Neutral unless you betray that person and seize as much of the profits as you can for yourself (which for a 'reasonable' evil type probably includes subjugation of various intensity rather than straight-up murder).

This is the difference between Chaotic and Evil. A Chaotic character might decide to Betray, but he will not do so consistently. He is an individualist who cares about maximizing his own score. Unless he believes that you personally don't deserve to have as much score as you do, he won't go out of his way to hurt you.

That is not to say that all acts that benefit the actor are Neutral. Good acts come with the benefit of reciprocity - as long as there are Good people in a society acting to maximize the score of another, they can all expect to find some other such people willing to do the same for them. Evil does not stand for this. Personal sacrifice must always have a direct benefit - an Evil character makes a sacrifice every time he sabotages a cooperative relationship with a Good or Neutral by betraying, but he gets a reward (short-term gain) out of it.

"I will save that baby so its mother rewards me" is a Neutral thing to do. An Evil character is allowed to do it, but if his actions consist entirely of this kind of act, he will eventually become Neutral. He can offset this by being Evil about it - using the leverage of reciprocity to force the mother to do something she wasn't willing to, for instance. Kicking the baby is still Evil (betraying) but it's one of those "sacrifice without obvious reward" situations, and an Evil character who does this is just stupid, not Evil.

I feel like this is also a good opportunity to explore what the differences between Chaotic and Lawful are. Time and again D&D 3.5 has stressed that the L-C axis is subservient to the G-E axis. The best way to describe Law and Chaos then is probably the way in which characters use that aspect of the alignment to deviate from their strategy in the short term.

A Lawful character follows policy - if this, then that. This means that a Lawful character will hold more strictly to his primary goal. LGs punish and forgive because they believe that it is in the competitor's best interests to cooperate, and show him what happens when they don't. LNs punish but do not forgive as easily - once their trust is betrayed, they know that to maximize their own score they must deny the traitor a chance to lop off more of it by countering betrayal with betrayal. LEs are more willing to work with the others because they recognize that betrayal must be strategic if they are to meet their desired goal (the most points for me, the least points for the other guy).

A Chaotic character deviates from policy on a whim (whether his own moral code or just a hunch). CGs will be more willing to give the other guy a chance, but may also be less willing to forgive, depending on how they are feeling that day. CNs may actually betray first, which is why a lot of people mistake them for an actually Evil alignment, since nobody else does this. But they're doing it for different reasons - instead of seeking to harm, they are acting preemptively to protect their own score. CNs are actually likelier to forgive than LNs (or to accept forgiveness) because they accept that other characters may be as flexible as they are. After all, if they never forgive, and the other guy never forgives, then they will not maximize their points. CEs, on the other hand, view forgiveness from the other party as weakness to be exploited. They betray early and often because their final goal of getting more points than the other guy is still ultimately met if both parties have almost no points.

So to answer the original question, Evils "rise" to Good when they set the benefit of another person as their goal without a clear and strictly defined reciprocal benefit, and slowly drift to Neutral if they maintain a large number of mutually beneficial relationships that they do not attempt to subvert to the detriment of the other party. So, saving the world and then getting a reward from the king? Neutral, better not do that too often. Saving the world and getting naught but the adoration of the people? Good, you "rise". Saving the world because you need it intact if you ever wish to rule it? Still Evil, you're good.

[Keneth]

Sociopathy and narcissism are good places to start for transcultural definitions of evil.

Frankly, I find that implication insulting. :smallannoyed:

[jedipilot24]

Evil has standards? There's a trope for that. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasStandards)

More (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeelFaceTurn)than (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FaceHeelTurn) one (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeelFaceRevolvingDoor) in fact. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EnemyMine)

[hamishspence]

That's kind of the opposite - those tropes are about there being some things so Evil that even most evil people won't do them.

The OP is more about "things Good enough that most Evil people aren't prepared to do them."

[Grim Portent]

There is no deed so pure that a being of darkest heart cannot corrupt it, both in execution and in intention.

There is nothing that can make the truly fallen rise.

Those who embrace their villainy, their corruption and their blasphemies with an honest heart and an open mind can never turn from the darkness save by repentance of their evils.

(That was quite fun to write. I may need to remember some of that for the next time I play an evil priest of some sort.)

[Segev]

Re: Objectivism - I can see the "neutral" argument, yes. A close reading of Rand's works will reveal her heroes acting to help strangers, however, even at (temporary) cost or (real) risk to themselves. Typically, it's cautious, to minimize risk, and with a veneer of "you have to pay me back"/"this is a loan, not charity," but in any Good society this would be somewhat to be expected anyway (gratitude demands that you do what you can to pay back those who help you, if only by living an upstanding life and adding to the community as a whole with your presence and your own good nature). The point of the philosophy is to find a way to maximize gain without pretending the world is other than it is, or that humans are not motivated by self-interest. It actually generates a non-sheep but still winning approach to the Prisoners' Dilemma, which brings us to...


Re: Prisoners' Dilemma - the eye-for-an-eye strategy is actually demonstrably optimal in an iterated variation of the game (i.e. one where you will meet the same person repeatedly or one wherein your reputation for past deeds will get around). The "good" strategy mentioned by another poster is actually known in game theory as the "sheep" strategy, and is NOT "good." It may be something a good-aligned person could do, but it promotes and rewards the "wolf" strategy (always betray) and thus incubates "evil" behavior into the society. It is also self-destructive in the face of "wolves."

A paladin would very much be the archetype I would expect to adopt the Eye for an Eye strategy: be honorable and trusting enough to take the first risk and cooperate on the first try. Punish swiftly any betrayal, but then immediately go back to rewarding cooperation with instant forgiveness when signs of repentance are shown. Do not give evil a chance to thrive, but also allow any who show they can be less than evil the chance to do so and thrive.

[hemming]

Objectivism - the common mistake of taking an individual philosophy based on false premises and applying it to society in a vacuum

This has been a public service announcement by structuralism

--------------------

Agree on the pertinent points at hand however - it is really hard to have this discussion without pop-culture references, but I always think of the Grinch as a CE character that experienced genuine redemption through repentance

It is not enough to simply do good things - the intent to do good needs to be there - and, over time, so does a reflection on and disavowal of past evil ways in light of new experiences/ways of thinking

[Frozen_Feet]

In game rules sense?

Truly regretting what they've done and having Atonement or Sanctify the Wicked cast on them.

What both of these have in common is that the person a) acknowledges they are Evil and b) doesn't want to be that anymore. They've seen the alignment description and don't want for it to apply to them anymore.

The same can be done without spells. In the short term, it means they stop hurting, oppressing and killing others. Where they might have previously answered like with like, insult for insult and fire for fire, they now let things slide. For example, a loanshark might forgive those who owe him money. A hunter might become a vegetarian. A slave-owner will set his slaves free. So on and so forth. This cessation of Evil will slowly move them towards Neutral. Alignment is more about consistency, than it is about single deeds. Single deeds only really come into question in corner cases like Paladin Code or Sacred Vows.

So, to move from Evil to Neutral, the key events are regret and cessation of evil acts.

But just not doing evil doesn't make one Good. To be good requires respect for life, concern for dignity of sentient beings and altruism - the sacrifice of one's own time and resources for benefit of others. At the lowest level, this might manifest as collecting money for the poor, becoming a worker at an orphanage, healing the sick for no charge, working for free etc.

Think about it for a moment: would call Evil a murderer who regrets what he's done and goes to laze in a jungle, eating bananas for the rest of his life? Or a racist who comes to regard victims of his previous contempt as people too, and goes out of his way to help and build shelters for them from there on?

If you would consider them evil, then you probably prescribe to a belief that's not strictly RAW: the idea that the taint of Evil is irremovable. That Evil acts, or at least some of them, can never be outdone or outweighed by any number of Neutral or Good actions. D&D does have rules for Evil deeds that are harder to redeem than normal, but even then the above two spells are usually enough to get over them.

[Shining Wrath]

To be evil, you have to go beyond mere selfishness to the point where others simply don't matter. From SRD:


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.

I'm going to pick one word out of that and run with it: compassion. When you start to consider how your actions affect others, you are flirting with non-evil. A smart evil person might consider how their actions affect others as part of predicting their response, and incorporate that in their scheming. So, to lose your evil alignment, you have to consider how your actions affect others, and care enough about them that you'll modify your actions to avoid causing them harm even if you foresee no benefit to you.

That, then, is the essence of evil. You care about others only as objects to be manipulated. You avoid harming others only so long as that serves your long-term goals.

[Keneth]

That, then, is the essence of evil. You care about others only as objects to be manipulated. You avoid harming others only so long as that serves your long-term goals.

I disagree. While compassion may be a necessary component of any Good alignment, the lack of compassion does not make you evil.

[Oliver Veyrac]

Evil character sees good character knocked on consious while evil character is fighting 3 gobbies. evil character full withdrawals out of combat, takes 2 attacks of opportunities, and moves over fallen comrades body, and takes an additional two more attack of opportunities and dies trying to protect his comrade from the coup de grace.

[BrokenChord]

I disagree. While compassion may be a necessary component of any Good alignment, the lack of compassion does not make you evil.

Nor does compassion make you non-Evil, imho, though it's a step in the right direction for sure.

[Segev]

Objectivism - the common mistake of taking an individual philosophy based on false premises and applying it to society in a vacuum

This has been a public service announcement by structuralism

I've never heard of "structuralism;" I'll have to look into it.

Objectivism is not based on false premises and nobody suggested applying it to anything in a vacuum. Well, except for those who like to try to paint it as "mean."

Regardless, what it takes to slip from "evil" to "neutral" is a pattern of respect for others at the expense of your immediate personal benefit coupled with a lack of pleasure taken at the pain of others for your own amusement.

The evil man who engages in the self-sacrificial actions for the good person in the scene described by an earlier post on this page is definitely not acting in an evil fashion. He is acting in a good fashion, or possibly a neutral one if the person for whom he's taking these risks (and ultimately sacrificing his life) is of personal importance to him (recall that neutral people are quite capable of charity for those for whom they care).

In a sense, one could look at good and evil through the lens of just how personally close one must be to others before one will do "genuinely charitable" deeds for them. ("Genuinely charitable" means they do it because they share in some way in the happiness or unhappiness of the target, and thus are not motivated by quid pro quo.)

An evil person cares only for himself, or potentially a few others who are very close to him. The more "people very close to him" for whom he'd do something just to make them happy, the less evil he likely is. Not a guarantee, but it's a good starting point. He is, conversely, far more willing to harm those outside of this favored group to benefit those within it.

A neutral person likely has a pretty broad category of friends and family he'll help out with little or no expectation of recompense. He has a smaller, closer group he'd be willing to do some level of evil to a broad category of "strangers" on behalf of, but even that harm may be limited unless the need seems dire. Neutral people won't generally hurt those even outside their "favored" group, but that's not guaranteed. They certainly will have a higher threshold of "need" than an evil person, and won't take pleasure in it (outside, perhaps of vengeance-type situations).

A good person is likely going to help even strangers, and would never harm people who don't force them to do so in order to prevent harm to others. Good people are actively pained by the suffering of even strangers, as a general rule, and delight in helping people who need it because it makes them happy to be a source of happiness for others.

[Shining Wrath]

I've never heard of "structuralism;" I'll have to look into it.

Objectivism is not based on false premises and nobody suggested applying it to anything in a vacuum. Well, except for those who like to try to paint it as "mean."

Regardless, what it takes to slip from "evil" to "neutral" is a pattern of respect for others at the expense of your immediate personal benefit coupled with a lack of pleasure taken at the pain of others for your own amusement.

The evil man who engages in the self-sacrificial actions for the good person in the scene described by an earlier post on this page is definitely not acting in an evil fashion. He is acting in a good fashion, or possibly a neutral one if the person for whom he's taking these risks (and ultimately sacrificing his life) is of personal importance to him (recall that neutral people are quite capable of charity for those for whom they care).

In a sense, one could look at good and evil through the lens of just how personally close one must be to others before one will do "genuinely charitable" deeds for them. ("Genuinely charitable" means they do it because they share in some way in the happiness or unhappiness of the target, and thus are not motivated by quid pro quo.)

An evil person cares only for himself, or potentially a few others who are very close to him. The more "people very close to him" for whom he'd do something just to make them happy, the less evil he likely is. Not a guarantee, but it's a good starting point. He is, conversely, far more willing to harm those outside of this favored group to benefit those within it.

A neutral person likely has a pretty broad category of friends and family he'll help out with little or no expectation of recompense. He has a smaller, closer group he'd be willing to do some level of evil to a broad category of "strangers" on behalf of, but even that harm may be limited unless the need seems dire. Neutral people won't generally hurt those even outside their "favored" group, but that's not guaranteed. They certainly will have a higher threshold of "need" than an evil person, and won't take pleasure in it (outside, perhaps of vengeance-type situations).

A good person is likely going to help even strangers, and would never harm people who don't force them to do so in order to prevent harm to others. Good people are actively pained by the suffering of even strangers, as a general rule, and delight in helping people who need it because it makes them happy to be a source of happiness for others.

We aren't supposed to discuss real-world religion and philosophy on these boards, or I would tell you what I think of Objectivism. I suggest you also not defend it.

[hemming]

I've never heard of "structuralism;" I'll have to look into it.

Objectivism is not based on false premises and nobody suggested applying it to anything in a vacuum. Well, except for those who like to try to paint it as "mean."
.

I apologize, that post was pretty mean-spirited. I have major issues with objectivism and couldn't pass up the opportunity to make a jab at it.

[hamishspence]

We aren't supposed to discuss real-world religion and philosophy on these boards, or I would tell you what I think of Objectivism. I suggest you also not defend it.

"Moral philosophy" falls into something of a grey area - it's possible to discuss it without venturing into forbidden territory - but difficult.

Since at least some D&D Planar Factions follow notable philosophies, they may be fair game within a D&D context.