What is evil?

[Thorvaldr]

One of the players in my campaign is playing a rogue that sometimes has a tendency to torture people that the party captures. (Usually, bandits on the road.) The torturing is to get information, not just sadistic pleasure.

Character's backstory was very rough childhood, grew up as a slave/servant in a variety of groups, passed around, etc. etc. So, never had a "good" role model.

Now, I've been saying that these acts are still evil, but my player is saying that their character isn't evil, and that their character A. Doesn't really know any better and B. Is doing it for the greater good. And he cited the example of Wolverine (Who apparently once skinned a man alive for abandoning a truck full of immigrants in the sun) and Batman (In a Frank Miller book beats the living crap out of a mutant in the mud: "You don't get it, son. This isn't a mudhole... It's an operating table. And I'm the surgeon.")

I'm leaning towards evil actions are still evil, but if someone cast Detect Evil, the aura of someone doing evil for a nobler purpose would look different than that of someone who is simply irredeemably evil. Maybe a Smite Evil would only work at half strength, etc. etc.

So, my questions:

1. What constitutes evil? Is it the actions? Or do the ends justify the means?
2. Would Wolverine and Batman in these examples be considered evil? Even if it's for vengeance?
3. How should alignment spells affect someone who is doing evil for a nobler cause?

[Ceaon]

Torture is an evil action.
Torture for certain reasons (information) may be considered "less" evil then torture for sadism, but it is still evil.

Note that neutral and good characters can perform evil actions. However, these actions should be exceptions in their behavior.

"The character doesn't know any better" is only a valid excuse for why the character continues to do evil actions if he wishes to be a neutral or good person. It does not mean the action isn't evil. If a character is completely incapable of moral decisions, DnD treats the character as neutral, though I doubt this is the case with this character.

1. What constitutes evil? Is it the actions? Or do the ends justify the means?
Both means and ends can be considered evil. Both can make your character evil.

2. Would Wolverine and Batman in these examples be considered evil? Even if it's for vengeance?
Even though the author of those examples may not agree, if a DnD character performs such actions, I'd say their actions are evil. The character wouldn't necessarily become evil because of it, though.

3. How should alignment spells affect someone who is doing evil for a nobler cause?
Alignment spells are very black and white: someone is evil or not. Someone is lawful or not. Etc.
So the different shades of lawful evil do not show up when you use detect law or detect evil.

[weckar]

"Doesn't know any better"

Evil by nature is still Evil. It's Evil.

[Loxagn]

Unlike the issue of Law vs Chaos, the debate of Good vs Evil is comparatively distinct:

-Causing undue pain is evil.
-Killing without reason is evil.
-Slavery is evil.
-Evil acts performed with good intentions are still evil. (Paladin's code even mentions this, I believe)
-It is possible for Good characters to perform Evil acts without an alignment shift, so long as these acts are not frequent and habit-forming. (In these examples, what Wolverine/Batman did was Evil, but they can still retain their Good alignments. Neither of them are Paladins, so they don't immediately Fall for committing evil.)
-Revenge is generally seen as evil as it is murder without any motivation other than selfish desire. (Remember. Looking out for yourself is Neutral. Going out of your way to hurt someone else for selfish reasons is Evil.)
-Torture is always Evil.

As for your character, I'm not sure if I would qualify him as Evil just yet. Torture is pretty evil, but is he working towards heroic goals?
Does he exhibit other aspects of a Good character?

If so, he's most likely Neutral. If not, he might well be evil, but unless there's a Paladin in your party, that might not be as big of an issue.

Also of importance is the opportunity (if the player desires) to reform. If he's been deprived of a good 'example' of how to be Good in his life, he should be given the roleplaying opportunity to change his ways.

[Grim Portent]

Using evil means to good ends is still evil.

Being ignorant that your actions are evil just makes you evil without knowing it.

Evil deeds can be outweighed by good deeds.

Torture is very evil no matter why it's done. The character is at best neutral unless he's a saint when he isn't inflicting pain.

[Larkas]

Ever heard the proverb "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? Alternatively, "hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works"?

Good isn't only about the ends, it's about the means to reach those ends too. That's why it can be so difficult to be consistently Good (capital G there) when facing dire circumstances.

The torturing of surrendered or captured opponents certainly is evil. Evil (capital E) even, since it's a reiterated behavior. It really seems like the character is a sadistic bastard.

Does that mean the character is evil? Hard to tell. Is that a defining trait of his personality? Does he do it because he likes it (and if he can get some information doing it, all the better)? Does he do it because he can get some information (and if he can get some fun doing it, all the better)? Or did I get everything wrong, and he does it only for the information? In the first case, I'd say he's evil, but not necessarily irredeemably so. In the second, he can range from "almost good" to "almost evil", but certainly lands squarely as neutral. In the third, he might be good, though with serious neutral tendencies.

Regardless, you're the DM. Go with what you feel is right. Just keep in mind that one action doesn't change your alignment. It's necessary to have a consistent behavior tendency to do so. That means, for example, that a Paladin might fall from doing an evil act, but keep being lawful good. Detect Evil and Smite Evil care only if the character is really evil. A neutral character currently doing evil deeds wouldn't be affected by them.

[Red Fel]

Ahh, another alignment debate thread. I'll limit myself to the OP, to avoid waxing philosophical.

D&D is fairly explicit on Good and Evil. These are arbitrary terms imposed by the cosmology, not relative terms conceived by the human mind. Accordingly, a character's background and motivations are irrelevant to the determination of whether an action is Good or Evil.

In essence, Good means that there are lines you will not cross - certain acts which are so anathema that they must not be done. Evil doesn't have those kind of limitations.

In popular media, which your player cites, a character can be morally ambiguous or an antihero by performing Evil acts for Good reasons. Not so in D&D.

Note that a single Evil act will not cause an alignment shift. Rather, it is a person's willingness to perform Evil acts consistently, or to perform a single monumentally Evil act which indicates that their alignment has already shifted away from Good. It is descriptive, not prescriptive.

With regard to your questions:

1. What constitutes evil? Is it the actions? Or do the ends justify the means?As Ceaon said, both. Performing an Evil act is Evil. Performing a Good act is not Evil, but doing it for Evil reasons would render it less-than-Good.

2. Would Wolverine and Batman in these examples be considered evil? Even if it's for vengeance?I'd rather not get into the debate, honestly. Popular media does not embrace the black-and-white morality of D&D. But technically? Yes, excessive vengeance (as opposed to justice) is Evil. Skinning someone alive, even because they killed someone horribly, is Evil. Beating someone up for no reason is Evil. By D&D terms.

3. How should alignment spells affect someone who is doing evil for a nobler cause?
Cause is not relevant. "For the greater good" is the mantra of the slippery slope. A character willing to perform atrocities, even for the noblest reasons, starts his descent into Evil the first time he says "But it's for a good cause."

Note again that performing Evil acts does not always make one an Evil person. It takes time, habit, and an effective change in one's moral compass.

Note also that, as Ceaon points out, gradations are complicated things. A person is either Evil or non-Evil, with regard to effects like Smite Evil and the like. However, with regard to spells like Detect Evil, it's more complicated. Per the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm):
An evil aura’s power depends on the type of evil creature or object that you’re detecting and its HD, caster level, or (in the case of a cleric) class level; see the accompanying table.
So a person who has merely committed many Evil acts, and is an Evil person, still won't light up like a Cleric of an Evil deity (even if that Cleric is himself non-Evil), an Undead or an Outsider. There is a scale.

But for alignment purposes? Evil.

[NichG]

One of the players in my campaign is playing a rogue that sometimes has a tendency to torture people that the party captures. (Usually, bandits on the road.) The torturing is to get information, not just sadistic pleasure.

Character's backstory was very rough childhood, grew up as a slave/servant in a variety of groups, passed around, etc. etc. So, never had a "good" role model.

Now, I've been saying that these acts are still evil, but my player is saying that their character isn't evil, and that their character A. Doesn't really know any better and B. Is doing it for the greater good. And he cited the example of Wolverine (Who apparently once skinned a man alive for abandoning a truck full of immigrants in the sun) and Batman (In a Frank Miller book beats the living crap out of a mutant in the mud: "You don't get it, son. This isn't a mudhole... It's an operating table. And I'm the surgeon.")

I'm leaning towards evil actions are still evil, but if someone cast Detect Evil, the aura of someone doing evil for a nobler purpose would look different than that of someone who is simply irredeemably evil. Maybe a Smite Evil would only work at half strength, etc. etc.


What I generally tell players is 'If your character gets assigned an evil alignment, that is not an indictment of you or any sort of indication that your character can't also be heroic; it doesn't require you to become a villain either. It just means that your actions, viewed with respect to a particular externally defined system of morality, are evil.' The problem I think is that a lot of players react to the GM saying 'your character shifts to evil' as if the GM is personally telling them 'you are a bad person'. They often take it very personally, when it really shouldn't be. There's no reason an evil character can't be a functioning part of the party just as much as a good one, because being tagged 'evil' is not prescriptive, its just a consequence of committing certain acts.

If a character chooses to do evil in pursuit of a noble goal, they're still evil-aligned. But they're also noble and heroic. They're not inconsistent with eachother. They're making the choice to sacrifice their standing in the eyes of the cosmic judges of morality in order to achieve something that is more important to them than an abstract alignment.

But its important that the player understand that 'you're evil' isn't the DM saying 'I hate you'.



So, my questions:

1. What constitutes evil? Is it the actions? Or do the ends justify the means?
2. Would Wolverine and Batman in these examples be considered evil? Even if it's for vengeance?
3. How should alignment spells affect someone who is doing evil for a nobler cause?

So from the above:

1. Evil, in terms of the alignment, is just a consequence of cosmically observed actions - the universe 'sees' you do certain things and marks down the results in the form of tinging your soul with evil, good, chaos, law, whatever. That is then what magical alignment effects interact with.
2. Yes.
3. The same as everyone else.

Now, I'll caveat 3. I think its a really interesting idea to have alignment detection spells actually be able to give more complex signals that require skill to interpret. So maybe the signature of murder looks different than the signature of torture to someone with a practiced eye in judging sin. That would be a neat thing you could do, and in that case then of course the detection spells would be able to reveal those nuances. I'd still say that blunt hammers like Smite should still work as per normal though, it'd be more along the lines of 'someone can make a DC 18 Wisdom check when using Detect Evil to determine the cause of the evil alignment on a person, not just its presence'.

[PaucaTerrorem]

In my eyes torture for fun is Chaotic, torture for info is Lawful. Depending on their current alignment(I'm assuming it's CN right now?) I would give the player a warning that they are slipping. If there's truly a balance in the fun/info area call 'em Neutral(got a job to do, might as well have fun). But if they go out of their way to do this line of work, call 'em Evil(doing your job is one thing but excess is always bad). For example: Party defeats baddies. Questions the prisoner(s). If the player says "B.S. Let's get the real answer" without asking for a Sense Motive, Evil. Asks for the SM and fails, less Evil. Asks for SM and passes but still wants to torture, EVIL. At that point they're just doing it for fun.
I say TN that leans Evil.

Then again I'm the type that believes it's okay to hurt someone if it's really(REALLY) necessary and for the greater good.

[weckar]

In my eyes torture for fun is Chaotic, torture for info is Lawful. Depending on their current alignment(I'm assuming it's CN right now?) I would give the player a warning that they are slipping. If there's truly a balance in the fun/info area call 'em Neutral(got a job to do, might as well have fun). But if they go out of their way to do this line of work, call 'em Evil(doing your job is one thing but excess is always bad). For example: Party defeats baddies. Questions the prisoner(s). If the player says "B.S. Let's get the real answer" without asking for a Sense Motive, Evil. Asks for the SM and fails, less Evil. Asks for SM and passes but still wants to torture, EVIL. At that point they're just doing it for fun.
I say TN that leans Evil.

Then again I'm the type that believes it's okay to hurt someone if it's really(REALLY) necessary and for the greater good.

Would the character know the result of their SM roll, though?

[Thorvaldr]

Right now the character is Neutral-aligned, I've just warned the player that he's slipping slowly towards Evil.

So it's partly I have to make sure everyone is on the same page for D&D Evil... In D&D you can summon a being of pure good. Good and Evil aren't an amorphous man-made construct, Good and Evil are rigidly defined ideas brought about by planes and beings of pure good and pure evil.

I like the idea that even if the character is trending towards evil, that doesn't mean they aren't noble or heroic. I'll throw that terminology around a bit more. :smalltongue:

And I like the Wisdom Check for Detect Evil... some blunt hammer spells all work the same, evil is evil (and can be changed, over time or the Atonement spell), spells work normally, except they can possibly give more information. (Also: Thanks for the cleric example with Detect Evil, I had forgotten about that tidbit of information.)

[GreyBlack]

One of the players in my campaign is playing a rogue that sometimes has a tendency to torture people that the party captures. (Usually, bandits on the road.) The torturing is to get information, not just sadistic pleasure.

Character's backstory was very rough childhood, grew up as a slave/servant in a variety of groups, passed around, etc. etc. So, never had a "good" role model.

Now, I've been saying that these acts are still evil, but my player is saying that their character isn't evil, and that their character A. Doesn't really know any better and B. Is doing it for the greater good. And he cited the example of Wolverine (Who apparently once skinned a man alive for abandoning a truck full of immigrants in the sun) and Batman (In a Frank Miller book beats the living crap out of a mutant in the mud: "You don't get it, son. This isn't a mudhole... It's an operating table. And I'm the surgeon.")

I'm leaning towards evil actions are still evil, but if someone cast Detect Evil, the aura of someone doing evil for a nobler purpose would look different than that of someone who is simply irredeemably evil. Maybe a Smite Evil would only work at half strength, etc. etc.

So, my questions:

1. What constitutes evil? Is it the actions? Or do the ends justify the means?
2. Would Wolverine and Batman in these examples be considered evil? Even if it's for vengeance?
3. How should alignment spells affect someone who is doing evil for a nobler cause?

Ahh, the old "Doing something for the sake of good," paradox. Does performing an action make one evil? Philosophers have debated this question, literally, since the dawn of mankind, and we still aren't any closer to an answer.

From the D&D perspective, I suggest reading both the Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds. While certainly not scholarly endeavors, it should put a D&D question into perspective for you. Is killing orcish women and children evil? I mean, according to the monster manual, they're evil, so killing them would be good, right?

So, to your first question, what constitutes evil? I'd respond whatever your campaign world dictates. Are there noble, virtuous heroes? Or does everyone have to make some form of compromise for the greater good? If the former, then his actions are indefensibly evil, if the latter, then he has a leg to stand on.

Now, as to your player's examples, I would put him in Knight Templar status: Certainly not G, but not E either, most likely N, as neutral characters can do what they feel is best without feeling particularly strongly towards one alignment or another. His examples of Batman is completely off the mark, as Batman is usually written as a man who refuses to kill, lives by a strong moral code, and never performs an action simply because it is the easiest route. The Joker is strictly evil, yet Batman still refuses to kill him. That is the essence of Lawful Good; although I will admit Batman to be simply insane.

Wolverine I would classify as Neutral, as he does what's in his best interest. Helping mutantkind is in his best interest, but he's far too willing to play dirty to stay at good, but does act for the good of others at least occasionally, keeping him from being strictly evil. He's just doing his job, no more, no less.

Finally, how do spells affect someone doing evil for a greater good? That's a bit trickier. Kick him to neutral and have him work like that. If he tortures too much, kick him to evil and be done with it. I would be straight up with him and say that he is on the border of good and evil (maybe have a powerful NPC let him know that), and if he continues down this path, he will fall to evil or whatever.

Personally, when I DM, alignment is basically meaningless. I enjoy pitting noble paladin versus Cleric of the Order just to get my players to question, but that's just me.

[Duke of Urrel]

I agree with what NichG said, and I'll add the following.

I allow alignments to waver by one step in any direction, according to a creature's mood and behavior.

If you're angry enough to practice wanton cruelty right now, you're Evil right now – and your Evil is detectable – but if you're generally Neutral, you will probably recover later. This is no problem unless you're a cleric and you offend your deity, in which case you must atone. I believe morally Neutral deities are able to forgive a certain amount of "justified" violence, but there are limits, and if you violate a deity's notion of Law, Balance, or Freedom, then as a cleric, you're in trouble.

On the other hand, if you're generally Evil, but you feel generous and do something kind for someone, you become temporarily Neutral – and your Evil ceases to be detectable – but you recover as soon as you return to your old selfish self. Again, this isn't a problem unless you're an Evil cleric and you offend your deity. Many Evil deities take a pragmatic attitude toward kindness practiced in moderation, provided that one's ulterior motives are selfish or destructive, but there are limits here, too.

[Jergmo]

For the greater good? That's a terrifying statement (http://tropes.wikia.com/wiki/Well_Intentioned_Extremist).

[jedipotter]

Sure, the D&D books kinda go off the deep end and say things like ''causeinf pain is evil''. But then they ''have'' to say that.....the pinky and fuzzy bunnies are watching.


It is hard to do ''cosmic'' good or evil, as mortals. It is easy to say ''helping others is good'' or ''murder is evil'', but when you get down to day-to-day mortal life, it gets hard.

Say you have a clan of war dwarves. They cause pain to each other everyday. It is their way of life. Each dwarf beats each other dwarf to near death quite often. They consider themselfs good, but tough. So in the cosmic sense they would be evil, but to mortals they are good.

And: You have a group of elves that help everyone.....everyone that is an elf that is. They don't consider humans ''people'', so they don't help them at all. And they treat humans as little more then animals. They call themselfs good, but the cosmic would make them evil.

And so on and so on.

And you can spin forever....slavery is evil, but how about other types of unwilling service? What is Torture? What can you do and what can't you do?

[The Grue]

Is causing harm an Evil act? If so, then every soldier, every hunter, every town guard ever is Evil. Adventurers are the worst of the lot; they tend to slaughter creatures for purely personal gain.

Is it not causing harm, but causing undue harm that is evil? If so, we must define what kind of harm is "due".

Is it "due" harm to harm an Evil creature? If so, then torture is a Good act for any reason so long as the victim is Evil.

Is it "due" harm to cause harm in order to prevent harm? If so, then torture is a Good act so long as it yields information that can prevent more suffering than it causes.

[Slipperychicken]

I'll just drop this here.



Book of Vile Darkness

Lying (pg 7)- Not necessarily Evil, but Paladins still fall for it.

Cheating (pg 7)

Theft (pg 7)

Betrayal (pg 7) -Does not have to be intentional.

Murder (pg 7) -Killing for a "nefarious purpose", like personal gain, theft, or pleasure.

Vengeance (pg 8)- not necessarily evil, but leads to evil acts.

Worshipping Evil Gods and Demons (pg 8)

Animating or Creating Undead (pg 8) -Even if the undead are commanded to do good, it's still Evil because of negative energy.

Casting Evil Spells (pg 8)

Damning or Harming Souls (pg 8)

Consorting with Fiends (pg 8)- Includes:

Allowing Fiends to exist*
Selling one's soul to Fiends
Summoning a Fiend
Helping Fiends


Creating Evil Creatures (pg 9)

Allowing Evil creatures to "remake fallen foes in their image"


Using others for Personal Gain (pg 9)

Sacrificing another for a boon


Greed (pg 9)- Although not an Evil Act in and of itself (it's not an act at all, but a motivation), it can easily lead to Evil Acts.

Bullying or Cowing Innocents (pg 9)- Includes use of political and magical power in coercion, as well as physical power.

Bringing Despair (pg 9)

Tempting Others to do Wrong(pg 9)

Tapping into Evil Power (pg 77)- Regardless of effects or reason for it, it's Evil. Period. This one's really broad, covering any Evil (Ex)traordinary, natural (when there's no tag), (Su)pernatural, (Sp)ell-like, and so on.


Book of Exalted Deeds


Forcing Anyone to Commit an Evil Act (pg 10)

Using a Poison that Deals Ability Damage (pg 34) Using Drow knockout-poison is not evil.

Killing a Good Creature to Harvest its Parts or Organs (pg 37)

Committing Murder for Money (pg 73)

Notes:
"In the D&D universe... an Evil act is an Evil act no matter what good result it may acheive" (BoED pg 9) -Although the BoED acknowledges that an Evil act might cause greater good, the act remains Evil.

*Note: Although it is not explicitly stated, you could make the argument that a Paladin doesn't allow Fiends to exist in the same sense that a police department doesn't allow illegal drug deals to exist: it does its best to combat them, and by no means approves of their existence, but eliminating them entirely is too impractical to consider


Also, IIRC alignment alone is only a justification to kill creatures which are essentially beyond redemption (such as chromatic dragons and fiends), although I think that was written before the Succubus Paladin article came out.

[Yawgmoth]

What is evil? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.

[Duke of Urrel]

Kindly Dungeon Masters can spare Player-Characters quite a few moral dilemmas simply by having Evil monsters attack the PCs first, or attack other creatures under the PCs' protection. This is important to keep in mind, especially when the PCs are Good or mostly Good. Good PCs will have a hard time advancing if the only way they can experience combat is by initiating combat themselves, which usually goes against their own morality.

[NichG]

Kindly Dungeon Masters can spare Player-Characters quite a few moral dilemmas simply by having Evil monsters attack the PCs first, or attack other creatures under the PCs' protection. This is important to keep in mind, especially when the PCs are Good or mostly Good. Good PCs will have a hard time advancing if the only way they can experience combat is by initiating combat themselves, which usually goes against their own morality.

Its not a problem if you just give them the XP they've earned from overcoming a difficulty - fighting or negotiation or sneaking past are all ways of doing that.