Alignment Born or Raised

[Draco_Lord]

So, with all the threads on alignment popping up, and my interest in reading all the discussion on it. I thought I'd add something else into this.

A lot of debate, especially with how Paladins should act, lies in you only become evil after you have done evil (sometimes with magic). And I want to know if people agree with that?

Are babies born True Neutral, and then grow into their alignment? Are people born with a disposition towards certain alignments, and move towards them their entire lives? Are they just born with that alignment?

Personally, I believe people are inclined towards an alignment, whether by birth or by nature, and end up moving towards it. Maybe not all at once, or even by large deeds. That as a child they would show signs, a chaotic evil would be the bully who beats people up for fun, Lawful Good might be the kid who tells on everyone, and so on. But even by the time they are adults, most people would have leaning one way or another.

[Morcleon]

This is essentially the nature vs nurture question, which has been debated many times before.

As for my personal opinion, I believe everything without an alignment subtype starts as True Neutral and is raised toward a certain alignment through a combination of parents/creators/etc and growing environment.

[HammeredWharf]

D&D humans mimic real life ones and, as in real life, the relationship between inherent and influenced personality traits is a very complex one. I think that in D&D terms, typically TN races have TN babies, but some babies may be less Neutral than others.

However, other races are probably born into their alignments. For example, goblins are born lightly NE and may then grow to be Neutral or even Good. The same can obviously be said about Ousiders with alignment templates.

However, I think the nature vs. nurture thing doesn't have much to do with


A lot of debate, especially with how Paladins should act, lies in you only become evil after you have done evil (sometimes with magic). And I want to know if people agree with that?

this. Even if a goblin has never done any evil deeds, it can have the Evil alignment, if it will do an evil act given the chance. However, this doesn't give a Paladin the right to kill said goblin, because you don't murder someone just because they may do something.

[Draco_Lord]

See, HammeredWharf brings up the part of this debate that I think can get interesting. If someone is predisposed to evil, is it alright to kill them? Should all goblins, who are in fact born evil, be killed on sight, and celebrated as saving the kingdom? Or should their actions be judged a bit more?

Also, D&D is kind of interesting in that you have to do certain deeds to change alignment, it isn't just a perspective change, but an action change. This leads to some interesting things, and honestly fun debates, on the nature of alignment. For instance, someone buys a city block, evicts everyone, and plans to turn it into his own castle or what ever. He does it all in the rules of the law, giving full notice and so on, but gained the property through a legal technicality. He uses that law to only further his own gain, ignoring how many people are being displaced. It is clearly lawful, but is that Evil or Neutral? Would a person who uses the law for their own gain only be evil or neutral? To be evil, must you oppress and hurt, or just take advantage of?

And wow I went off track. The point is, when someone is born with an evil alignment, is it okay for a paladin to just smite that child and kill them? Or should their actions matter?

[Morcleon]

And wow I went off track. The point is, when someone is born with an evil alignment, is it okay for a paladin to just smite that child and kill them? Or should their actions matter?

Via D&D's black and white alignment system, evil creatures should always be killed. However, via actual good and evil, killing children is just not a good thing. Alignment isn't something you just have, it's something that's determined by your actions, which children usually have not done enough of to warrant an alignment.

[Draco_Lord]

Via D&D's black and white alignment system, evil creatures should always be killed. However, via actual good and evil, killing children is just not a good thing. Alignment isn't something you just have, it's something that's determined by your actions, which children usually have not done enough of to warrant an alignment.

But this is my point. By that logic, all alignments are basically a part of you. There is no redemption. There is only your death. Not to mention this throws a whole wrench in the nature vs nurture debate for a lot of races. Elves vs Drow for one. Drows should just be culled by Paladins, save the world a whole lot of evil. Or how about half fiends? Someone born from a demon parent, they could spend their lives trying to be good, and wouldn't be able to over come that pinging of evil. They are definitely born into the system, and so should just be killed.

[Crake]

Even if a goblin has never done any evil deeds, it can have the Evil alignment, if it will do an evil act given the chance. However, this doesn't give a Paladin the right to kill said goblin, because you don't murder someone just because they may do something.

I don't think doing something evil given the chance would constitute evil. Being given the chance to do evil would be a corrupting factor, which could in turn make someone become evil, but I think if you follow that logic, a huge amount of people would be considered evil. Evil, I think, is determined by those who go out of their way to perform evil.

Then again I suppose that comes down to: what is considered evil? I personally think that just wanting to do evil, but not following through, is a neutral thing, even if it's purely fear of punishment keeping you in line, because again, if everyone who WANTED to do evil showed up on a detect evil spell, then i feel like most of the population would show up. Everyone's wanted to do something evil at one point for some reason or another.

[Tuvarkz]

Even if they pinged as Evil, Goblin babies technically would have yet to commit an evil action. It would be a strongly Chaotic act to kill them, pulling the paladin out of Lawful alignment and thus making him fall.

[Flickerdart]

Even if a goblin has never done any evil deeds, it can have the Evil alignment, if it will do an evil act given the chance.
That's not what an alignment means. A creature who is Evil (even Chaotic Evil) doesn't perform every possible Evil act it can. An Evil creature is likely to pick the less scrupulous choice in a moral dilemma, but nobody is so cartoonishly evil that they will go evil acts every time they are "given the chance."


Even if they pinged as Evil, Goblin babies technically would have yet to commit an evil action. It would be a strongly Chaotic act to kill them, pulling the paladin out of Lawful alignment and thus making him fall.
How is it Chaotic? Killing someone based on a label, rather than individual circumstances, is super-Lawful. Also, Chaotic acts don't make paladins fall unless they are in gross violation of their Code.

[hamishspence]

If you go by MM, it's "Always Evil" monsters that are "born with the listed alignment" - others grow into it over time.

And if you go by BoED:

"Placing a fireball so that it encompasses orc women (orcs are extremely patriarchal and women are normally noncombatants) and children, as well as orc warriors, is an evil act, since the woman and children are not a threat"

[HammeredWharf]

See, HammeredWharf brings up the part of this debate that I think can get interesting. If someone is predisposed to evil, is it alright to kill them? Should all goblins, who are in fact born evil, be killed on sight, and celebrated as saving the kingdom? Or should their actions be judged a bit more?

There's purposefully no definitive answer to this. D&D supports plenty of different settings and campaign styles. Only a few of them tackle morality in any serious matter. Killing some goblin raiders in a FR-based dungeon crawler is quite different from killing them in a RP-heavy Ravenloft campaign.


Via D&D's black and white alignment system, evil creatures should always be killed.

I don't see any evidence of this. Demons and such? Sure, killing them is a Good act for mechanic reasons. Greedy merchants? Maybe, because they have to be preeetty greedy to earn the Evil alignment. However, it's not always the case.


That's not what an alignment means. A creature who is Evil (even Chaotic Evil) doesn't perform every possible Evil act it can. An Evil creature is likely to pick the less scrupulous choice in a moral dilemma, but nobody is so cartoonishly evil that they will go evil acts every time they are "given the chance."

Luckily, I didn't say it would commit every possible evil act every time it gets a chance to do so, did I?

[OldTrees1]

If you go by MM, it's "Always Evil" monsters that are "born with the listed alignment" - others grow into it over time.

Correct. Although remember that "Always Evil" does not mean Always Evil, so even "Always Evil" NPCs are affected by Nurture even if it is a much more uphill battle.


See, HammeredWharf brings up the part of this debate that I think can get interesting. If someone is predisposed to evil, is it alright to kill them? Should all goblins, who are in fact born evil, be killed on sight, and celebrated as saving the kingdom? Or should their actions be judged a bit more?

Point of Order: The Monster Manuel rules that not all goblins are born evil.

[Draco_Lord]

Point of Order: The Monster Manuel rules that not all goblins are born evil.

See, this is where my question stands. Now, does the Monster Manuel say "born" or that not all goblins "are" evil? There is a slight difference, and brings into it my very question about being born/raised. It also raises the question of why that happens, if they are indeed born with or without an alignment. And what are the consequences of such an event.

[Tuvarkz]

That's not what an alignment means. A creature who is Evil (even Chaotic Evil) doesn't perform every possible Evil act it can. An Evil creature is likely to pick the less scrupulous choice in a moral dilemma, but nobody is so cartoonishly evil that they will go evil acts every time they are "given the chance."


How is it Chaotic? Killing someone based on a label, rather than individual circumstances, is super-Lawful. Also, Chaotic acts don't make paladins fall unless they are in gross violation of their Code.

Because it's likely that the idiot that goes around charming ladies and leading them around only to discard them as he grows bored of them also pings Evil. A Paladin wouldn't go and drive a sword through it and consider it a "Lawful Good" act because he pinged Evil. It's a Chaotic Good Act because being Evil isn't in itself worthy of killing over. If the being commits terribly evil acts, then yes it's Lawful Good to kill them. Emphasis on crimes.

Also, because killing someone just for being Evil basically denies the concept of Mercy, which Paladins are meant to uphold when someone can be forgiven and/or redemeed.

[OldTrees1]

See, this is where my question stands. Now, does the Monster Manuel say "born" or that not all goblins "are" evil? There is a slight difference, and brings into it my very question about being born/raised. It also raises the question of why that happens, if they are indeed born with or without an alignment. And what are the consequences of such an event.

Goblins are "Usually NE". This means, per page 305, that a mere majority (not a supermajority) are NE and the remaining minority is split between the other 8 alignments. For "Often" races there isn't even a majority of the given alignment(only a plurality). For "Always" races the only exceptions are exceptions so let's call that 99% for ease of calculations.

Furthermore, page 305 goes into some nature/nurture theories and says that "Always"(which still isn't Always) is assumed to be hereditary/plane of origin while the lesser biases ("Usually" and "Often") can be either nurture or nature.

So no, some goblins are born non evil since at most a majority are born NE(the shaped by nature case).

I have a theory that might give evidence to the goblins' bias being shaped by nurture rather than by nature (goblins are usually found in wastelands that their people were pushed to by the "civilized races").

[Eldonauran]

They way I see it, every creature (individually) is predisposed to a certain type of alignment, even if that alignment is Neutrality. Using a real-world comparison, different people are of different temperaments regardless of nurture. A lot of people are hard-wired from conception to a certain course of thought/action. I see no reason why certain races in D&D can't be genetically predisposed to certain alignments.

Specifically, infants and creatures that are unaware of the differences between right and wrong (insert good/evil or law/chaos as you will) are similar to Animals, effectively Neutral. They simply lack an alignment. As the creature grows in Intelligence and matures, it will be pulled towards an alignment as it begins to make decisions and take actions.

Also, let's be realistic about the 'Detect Evil' spell. A first level Cleric of an evil deity detects as a 'Faint' aura and it is only on the 3rd round that you can actually pin-point that person as the source of the aura. Until then, you simply detect the presence of an aura (round 1) and then the number and strength of the auras (2nd round). The only reason I bring this up is that any alignment aura you MIGHT pickup from an infant/child should be so faint/dim that it is almost non-existent.

So, after all that we are left with a question. Is it right to smite/kill a creature that has a very good chance of being rehabilitated to rise above its genetic predispositions? You can't be sure that it won't be evil in the end, but that goes for anyone in the D&D universe.

[hamishspence]

They way I see it, every creature is predisposed to a certain type of alignment, even if that alignment is Neutrality.

PHB "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral".

[Eldonauran]

PHB "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral".

I am aware of this. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I meant each creature, as an individual, not as a race. This is why Always doesn't mean 100% of the time.

[OldTrees1]

So, after all that we are left with a question. Is it right to smite/kill a creature that has a very good chance of being rehabilitated to rise above its genetic predispositions? You can't be sure that it won't be evil in the end, but that goes for anyone in the D&D universe.


Interestingly important way you started that question.
You did not ask "Is it good" or "Is it evil", you asked "Is it right" which differentiates between the best you can do and the minimum to be good. Thus you bypassed the "is smiting/killing non-good in this case" argument. Hopefully others will notice this nuance.


My position is that: In general the right thing to do would be to rehabilitate and redeem. I hold this position for 3 reasons:
1) You stop their future evil(which smiting does not do in D&D and even if it did then this is merely a wash)
2) You increase the amount of good in the world(something destruction does not do)
3) You save that individual

Of course, my position becomes less useful to the nature/nurture debate when I admit that my position does not differentiate between goblins and devils.

[hamishspence]

I meant each creature, as an individual, not as a race.

That could work.

The combination of "some nature, some nurture" may help to cover all the bases.

[Yukitsu]

D&D adds a tremendous element of divine intervention into the mix. The Drow wouldn't be evil likely if Lolth commanded them to chill out and swapped to neutral herself. If Gruumsh hadn't literally made his entire race to be the scourge of every other race, orcs wouldn't be evil. Depending on how heavily the specific deities influence creatures in your game, it can add or detract from a nature/nurture debate with these gods circumventing them both. Nature vs. nurture would be a more interesting and nuanced discussion without them, but as it is, there's nature, nurture and divine intent from a creator deity of that race.

[Flickerdart]

Because it's likely that the idiot that goes around charming ladies and leading them around only to discard them as he grows bored of them also pings Evil. A Paladin wouldn't go and drive a sword through it and consider it a "Lawful Good" act because he pinged Evil. It's a Chaotic Good Act because being Evil isn't in itself worthy of killing over. If the being commits terribly evil acts, then yes it's Lawful Good to kill them. Emphasis on crimes.
Murdering someone because they ping Evil is not Chaotic Good because it's not Good.

Murdering someone because they ping Evil is dogmatic and follows a very clear code (if it's evil, put it to the sword) which is Lawful. "Lawful" and "just" are not the same thing.

[Eldonauran]

Interestingly important way you started that question.
You did not ask "Is it good" or "Is it evil", you asked "Is it right" which differentiates between the best you can do and the minimum to be good. Thus you bypassed the "is smiting/killing non-good in this case" argument. Hopefully others will notice this nuance.

That is my hope as well. There is already too much misunderstanding about what is good/evil and lawful/chaotic. If we can agree that smiting/killing the goblin child is not right, we can lay the foundation for explicitly calling out the act as Not-Good. Paladins are not barred from taking Not-Good actions, only Evil actions.

It might be more expedient in the long run to eliminate a tribe of goblins, from elder to infant, if a pressing evil threatens the world and you have no time to rehabilitate them. Paladins strive to show mercy but not all of them (few actually) are also Exalted.



My position is that: In general the right thing to do would be to rehabilitate and redeem. I hold this position for 3 reasons:
1) You stop their future evil(which smiting does not do in D&D and even if it did then this is merely a wash)
2) You increase the amount of good in the world(something destruction does not do)
3) You save that individual

I agree with you completely. This would be the ultimate right thing to do. Exactly what an Exalted character would strive for.

[HolyDraconus]

I'm pretty bloody sure there was an official LG Succubus Paladin. I just can't find the page.... looking though.

[hamishspence]

This was it:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a

There was also a LN succubus in Planescape: Torment. The Dragon Magazine Demonomicon: Malcanthet article, written by the writer of Fiendish Codex 1, James Jacobs, also mentions her.

[atemu1234]

This is essentially the nature vs nurture question, which has been debated many times before.

And not just in D&D's context.

If anyone finds the answer to this, let us know.

[Sagetim]

If you go by MM, it's "Always Evil" monsters that are "born with the listed alignment" - others grow into it over time.

And if you go by BoED:

"Placing a fireball so that it encompasses orc women (orcs are extremely patriarchal and women are normally noncombatants) and children, as well as orc warriors, is an evil act, since the woman and children are not a threat"

hah.

Yeah....if you were going by that logic in a game I was running, you would find yourself quickly flabbergasted wehn the orc women and children took up arms against you to avenge their husbands/fathers/whatever. The 'they are not a threat' to me seems like a very subjective thing. Some DM's will claim they weren't a threat, but I have no doubt that there are some ******* DM's out there who would claim they are not a threat because the BOED said so, then have them threaten the party to force the players into a bull**** situation. And then there would be DM's like me who would say 'you must be high if you think they aren't a threat, you just killed their loved ones with a fireball, they're going to try and murder you.'

Anyway, the only way to be born evil is if you have an alignment subtype of evil, or perhaps if your monster manual entry says 'always evil'. Even then, it's up to the GM if the entry in the monster manual reflects some inborn evil tendency, or if it is reflective of cultural forces. However, when it comes to alignment subtype you're ****ed. You could be a redeemed succubus and still ping as evil because of your alignment subtype (you could even be a succubus paladin, but you still take your negative levels while holding a axiomatic holy longsword because of your inborn alignment subtypes).

And if you're wondering where this succubus paladin example comes from (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a), it's from an old Wizards article series called Fight Club.

[Mechalich]

Alignment is, essentially, a summation of key personality components and how they affect the spectrum of the D&D morality compass wheel.

Personality contains both nature and nurture sources, and also, is considerably more volatile during development. So just as a person might have a predisposition towards some personality trait in their genes, there will also be significant influence from upbringing and culture.

Generally, in D&D, these two things are self-reinforcing. A race predisposed to evil genetically is going to hold evil beliefs, produce evil gods (or be produced by evil gods) and develop or be forced to produce an evil culture that indoctrinates its members to evil. Developing a personality compatible with a 'good' alignment in that situation requires extraordinary circumstances.

Now, beings with 'Always X' alignment are different. Most such creatures are Outsiders or Undead (not counting unintelligent beings who are always neutral), who in some critical sense lack the same kind of free will available to mortals. Changing their alignment generally involves outside intervention from some extremely powerful source if it can happen at all.

[Psyren]

The thing about nature vs. nurture is that it's irrelevant for D&D. Alignment is a game statistic, and like all other game statistics, they shouldn't apply to children. The only monsters you should ever encounter are adults, and therefore how they got that way shouldn't matter.

The Giant answered this one best:


Here are the stats you actually need for a hatchling dragon:

Movement: Gets away if you let it.
Saving Throws: Miraculously survives all accidents.
Armor Class: You hit.
Hit Points: Congratulations, Baby-Killer.
Special Qualities: I hope you can live with yourself.

Coincidentally, these are the same exact stats for every other species of baby.

So I would simply add "Alignment: Come Back Later."

[Sagetim]

The thing about nature vs. nurture is that it's irrelevant for D&D. Alignment is a game statistic, and like all other game statistics, they shouldn't apply to children. The only monsters you should ever encounter are adults, and therefore how they got that way shouldn't matter.

The Giant answered this one best:



So I would simply add "Alignment: Come Back Later."

I would basically second this.

[AvatarVecna]

It is my belief and understanding that, whether or not a person can be born Good or Evil, the environment they are raised in, and the people they interact with growing up, have a monumentally greater difference on their moral disposition. I would argue that this logic follows through for creatures like goblins and orcs, who in general fantasy have ****ty lives and Evil deities, so it makes sense that they'd try to improve their situation even through violence. Where the argument becomes less clear is when planar influence comes into the equation: angels, demons, devils...all can have half-mortal children; is their alignment more due to the environment they're raised in, or their planar parent's blood flowing in their veins. Again, I would argue that their heritage plays a large part, but their environment can help overcome it.

For example: In "Tales of MU" (which I will not link to, since the story is littered with NSFW chapters), the main character is a McKenzie Blaise, a half-demon is a setting with a general prejudice against monstrous races and demons in particular (deservedly so, but still); she was raised by her super-strict, fanatically religious, epic paladin grandmother after her mother disappeared for some reason. She finds many fairly accepting friends at magic college who try to help fix the emotional and psychological scars her grandmother left in her, as well as helping her learn to contain her demonic urges. It works out okay...for the most part.

Here's my advice, if you should find yourself wondering about this during a game.

You shouldn't use the heritage or a characters alignment to just say "no, they wouldn't do that, because Evil; instead, they'd do this Stupid Evil thing", not only because that's taking the player's control of their character away, but their character's predisposition towards Evil and their desire to be Good (or vice versa) can make for a wonderful story, and you're making that worse by just saying "Eh, they're evil, so screw 'em".

"Always Evil" doesn't actually mean always, it's just most of the time. The number of Drizz't clones being CG rebels caused the drow race, pantheon, history, and moral predispositions to get retconned twice in later editions of D&D, and OotS depicts the goblin people as victims of fantastic racism created and enforced by the deities of the land, leaving them little choice but to fight for enough to continue living...and twice, to rebel against the more divinely blessed races of the land, and it makes them interesting. There's an old-school character that's essentially a succubus paladin. Don't let alignment be so restrictive; instead, use it to make a better story, and let the character be themselves.

[Mechalich]

The thing about nature vs. nurture is that it's irrelevant for D&D. Alignment is a game statistic, and like all other game statistics, they shouldn't apply to children. The only monsters you should ever encounter are adults, and therefore how they got that way shouldn't matter.

Except, what if you charge into the orc den and kill all the adults and every kid old enough to stand because they all attack anyway. Now you have an orc infant mewling in front of you. What do you do? Whether or not they are irredeemably evil suddenly matters a lot.

If they are 'born bad' then you might as well just kill them and be done with it. If they aren't then maybe you have to think about trying to have someone raise said infant and try to produce a good-aligned, or at least neutral, adult. Yes most games will elide this particular conundrum, but not all will, and there are occasions where you would deliberately seek out infant monsters, such as capturing them to raise as mounts.

The hatchling dragon example is actually particularly relevant, because dragons are one of the monsters that actually have babies and have 'Always X' for alignment (in the SRD it's dragons, unicorns, sphinxes, and lycanthropes, not exactly a long list). So you cannot go around killing adult chromatics and raising their hatchlings to be mounts for paladin dragonriders, they will remain evil no matter what you do.

[hamishspence]

Actually, "Always Evil" creatures can change alignment - it's only that their starting alignment is Evil. In Forgotten Realms, there's a few non-evil chromatic dragons, at least one of which was in the Myth Drannor plotline - Garnet, mount of a elven hero.

In MM2, it mentions that crystal dragons take white dragon eggs, and raise the offspring to be less evil than normal white dragons.

[Psyren]

Now you have an orc infant mewling in front of you. What do you do? Whether or not they are irredeemably evil suddenly matters a lot.

No, it really doesn't. Children get a chance, end of story. Cutting it down because you can't be arsed is an evil act and you would fall hard (if applicable.)

"Always" in D&D does not mean 100% even for fiends, it most certainly does not mean that for humanoid babies or dragon babies.

[hamishspence]

That said, killing a baby dragon "In self-defence" happens an awful lot.

[Telonius]

Good and Evil (and Law and Chaos, too) assume a moral actor. Children - particularly infants - have diminished capacity for moral choice and consent, so aren't quite as fully responsible for their actions as adults are. If they're not a moral actor, they don't have an alignment. Things are a bit different when you have an [Alignment] tag on the monster.

[Psyren]

That said, killing a baby dragon "In self-defence" happens an awful lot.

I believe his point was that making the hatchlings into hazards you might need to defend against was not necessary, and I agree. I'm sure baby Rocs, baby Giants and offspring of similarly large creatures could in theory be dangerous to an inexperienced adventurer too, yet we don't have stats for those, probably because nobody can really countenance chopping up a giant baby. Yet somehow it's okay for dragons because... they're ugly I guess? They can fight back a little?

The most likely reason the designers didn't critically examine it was tradition - but "because Gygax did it" isn't really an excuse. This is the guy that advocated Paladins committing torture and euthanasizing prisoners after all.


Good and Evil (and Law and Chaos, too) assume a moral actor. Children - particularly infants - have diminished capacity for moral choice and consent, so aren't quite as fully responsible for their actions as adults are. If they're not a moral actor, they don't have an alignment. Things are a bit different when you have an [Alignment] tag on the monster.

Precisely.

[Flickerdart]

Things are a bit different when you have an [Alignment] tag on the monster.
Do any races with a built-in infancy stage actually have alignment tags? I can't think of any off the top of my head...

[hamishspence]

Do any races with a built-in infancy stage actually have alignment tags? I can't think of any off the top of my head...

Erinyes fiends. Female and male erinyes exist, and reproduce, whereas other fiends are mostly born from mortal souls.

Also, cambion demons (Expedition to the Demonweb Pits - born from a planetouched mother and a demon father). Despite the [Evil] tag, and the (Demon) name, they are only "Often Chaotic Evil" - and the text section states that 10% are Neutral or Good (and that this is usually due to the planetouched mother being nonevil).

[Telonius]

I'm away from the books at the moment. Is that "Evil human" race from Book of Vile Darkness [Evil] or just Always Evil? And the alignment ceremony from Savage Species could theoretically be performed on a child. But those are some pretty exceptional cases.

[Flickerdart]

Erinyes fiends. Female and male erinyes exist, and reproduce, whereas other fiends are mostly born from mortal souls.
Really? That's kinda dumb. What makes them special?


Also, cambion demons (Expedition to the Demonweb Pits - born from a planetouched mother and a demon father). Despite the [Evil] tag, and the (Demon) name, they are only "Often Chaotic Evil" - and the text section states that 10% are Neutral or Good (and that this is usually due to the planetouched mother being nonevil).
That's even sillier than the erinyes.

[hamishspence]

Really? That's kinda dumb. What makes them special?

Being the original angels who Fell with Asmodeus, may have given them special powers.

Another "infant with the Evil subtype" is the Unholy Scion from Heroes of Horror - it can be either a half-fiend conceived in a tainted area, or it's what happens when a possessor fiend possesses an unborn child - the fiend becomes trapped in the embryo's body - and the embryo turns into a Native Outsider with the [Evil] subtype.

[atemu1234]

Being the original angels who Fell with Asmodeus, may have given them special powers.

Another "infant with the Evil subtype" is the Unholy Scion from Heroes of Horror - it can be either a half-fiend conceived in a tainted area, or it's what happens when a possessor fiend possesses an unborn child - the fiend becomes trapped in the embryo's body - and the embryo turns into a Native Outsider with the [Evil] subtype.

To be fair, it's not really a child as much as an extension of the father on the material plane...

[hamishspence]

For the possessor version, it might start out that way - but by birth we have a whole new creature. The child might have been conceived the old fashioned way between two mortals, possessed, and the possessor spirit transforms the embryo - merging with it.

Which makes one wonder what happened to the original body of the possessor demon - does it die - with the possessor demon effectively having been transformed into the new unholy scion?

[Frosty]

Since my view is that alignment is determined by past action, babies are never born with anything save Neutral. Outsiders possibly excluded of course.