What is considered Evil?

[ReD_Exorcist]

So my DM and I had a argument of what is considered Evil. I stated that any kind killing of innocents (Whether it be profitable, self enjoyment or contracted) would eventually make you evil, maybe not at that moment but if its done enough times then eventually your alignment would change. We were arguing because one of our players became a deity. Her alignment in the campaign was Chaotic Neutral, in the epilogue though she became a Lawful Neutral assassin god. Shouldn't she have overtime become a Chaotic Evil alignment then when she becomes a Deity it would change to Lawful Evil. So just wondering if that was the right alignment for her. If anyone has official links for 3.5 Evil Alignment definitions please source them.

[hamishspence]

The big list of Alignment-related statements - and what 3.0-3.5 books they come from.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?241789-Alignment-related-3-0-3-5-book-statements-summary

[Crake]

Generally yes, in dnd, killing for money is just straight up evil (as evidenced by the assassin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/assassin.htm)), though killing for a cause is not necessarily the case (as evidenced by the assassin clone going by different fluff, the avenger (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a)).

As such, I definitely agree that a god of assassins most definitely would be evil, though I suppose the meaning I use when I say "assassin" is "contract killer". Your DM may have a different meaning behind assassin, possibly using the word to include characters who have the authority to mete out lawful justice upon criminals who are able to evade capture, acting much like a church mandated "assassin". There has been a recent thread about the ethics of killing someone, typically a helpless person, as most assassins tend to do, so you can go have a look at that, but you'll find that alignment is very much a subjective thing, and there will always be that one person who disagrees with your viewpoint (even if everyone else sees it that way).

As a final point, it may be a campaign specific thing, but is there any reason in particular that the character went from chaotic to lawful simply due to becoming a god? That struck me as somewhat odd.

[Segev]

Yeah, I'm also O_Oing at the alignment shift in question. Going from CN to LN is as drastic a shift as going from LG to CE or vice-versa. Despite how it's oft depicted, don't think of the alignment grid as a square, with the LG/CG/CE/LE corners "more extreme" than the LN/NG/CN/NE sides of the box. The axes aren't really independent. You cannot be perfectly Lawful and perfectly Evil; LE is less Evil than NE, and less Lawful than LN.

If she was CN before, she's as chaotic as it's possible to be. It was purer than the corrupt psychopathy of CE, and more free than the societal constraints of CG. To shift all the way to LN, she had to lose as much Chaos and gain as much Law as the sum of changes would have been had she had to lose Evil and Chaos from CE to get up to LG.

It is easier to go from CE to LE than from CN to LN: the former, you already are evil and making compromises in Chaos for the sake of your personal malevolent designs, and thus have less Chaos to give up and less Law to take on (as you're still compromizing Law for Evil and vice-versa); the latter, you're changing an alignment of absolute freedom, even from your own desires where they would enslave you, to an alignment of absolute order. It's a bigger jump. As big as trading an alignment where your only ruler is your own selfish and cruel desire (CE) for one where you are ruled by a strict moral code designed to maximize the happiness of all (including yourself) (LG).