Planning to do evil in future is enough to make a character Evil ?

[Conradine]

According to Fiendish Codex, merely bad thinking is not enough to make a person Evil, it requires actions.
But planning and training is action or thought, in your opinion?

Specific situation: a Neutral character ( never killed, never stole, never hurted seriously anyone ) joins a monastery of a non evil faith and starts training and studying. But he's doing that for selfish reasons: he has no intention to become a benefactor, he wants to become strong and use this strenght - both mystical and physical - to fulfill his ambitions which are quite evil ( oppression, power, edonism ).

Should his alignement slip to Neutral Evil during the training, or only when he dirties his hands the first time?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Conradine
Should his alignement slip to Neutral Evil during the training, or only when he dirties his hands the first time?

I would say only after he commits the first evil deed, and possibly not even then. It really depends on the specifics of what he’s planning and how he carries out those plans.

If he’s whispering misinformation to support a future crime, the crime itself remains undone, and there isn’t yet proof that he’s committed to his intended path. He still has the chance to pull back and make another choice.

Once he’s gone through with the crime, then that’s a specific action that would argue for an alignment change—but even then there’s a question of whether it was an isolated incident or the first in a pattern. If it’s pretty clear this was the latter, then that would argue strongly for making the Dark Side switch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCtbi2UzdSU).

[Aldrakan]

According to Fiendish Codex, merely bad thinking is not enough to make a person Evil, it requires actions.
But planning and training is action or thought, in your opinion?

Specific situation: a Neutral character ( never killed, never stole, never hurted seriously anyone ) joins a monastery of a non evil faith and starts training and studying. But he's doing that for selfish reasons: he has no intention to become a benefactor, he wants to become strong and use this strenght - both mystical and physical - to fulfill his ambitions which are quite evil ( oppression, power, edonism ).

Should his alignement slip to Neutral Evil during the training, or only when he dirties his hands the first time?

Is the non-evil faith in question neutral, or good? Does it train people with the understanding that they will use the skills they gain to become benefactors? Are there parts of their teachings that he intends to ignore because they conflict with his selfish goals?
If so, I would say he is currently engaged in an evil scheme, if not an especially dire one, to essentially steal knowledge from people who give it out under conditions that he is, actively or passively, deceiving them into believing he has accepted.
Furthermore I'd say that while having bad thoughts doesn't necessarily make you evil, it can if the reason you don't act on them isn't because you decide not to (either because for moral reasons or because you fear consequences), but because your plan to be able to carry them out hasn't come to fruition yet.

So it's not definite, but I'd say he could be considered evil at this point.

[Mordaedil]

Seeing as his plans are just ideas and there's plenty of time for his experiences to change who and what he is, I'd say only once you start the wagon ride, will it start tipping the scales of destiny. Consider it lifting the piece and next you will place it it once you've decided on your move.

[GrayDeath]

Being selfish and aiming for Power is not Evil.
Wanting to enjoy Sensual Things (Hedonism) is not Evil as long as it does not involve hurting others.
Lying is chaotic, not Evil.
Scheming is....well Scheming, neither Evil nor Good either.

WHat exactly are his evil "oppression" Plans? Because so far he seems classic selfosh true to Chaotic neutral to me.

[hamishspence]

According to Fiendish Codex, merely bad thinking is not enough to make a person Evil, it requires actions.

It's not enough to consign someone to the Nine Hells. It says nothing about the other Lower Planes. Or a character's actual alignment.

A person who has had their alignment forcibly changed can be Evil aligned before they've had a chance to do anything evil. Thus, actions, while important, are not the be-all and end-all.

Presumably, a villain who tries the "change their enemy's alignment, then slay them, in the hope of consigning their enemy's soul to the Lower Planes" will end up discovering this, when they investigate where their enemy's soul's actually gone. Possibly the soul actually goes to the Outlands, or even the plane that their behaviour the rest of their life, fits with best.

[Kaleph]

Based on your description, I am under the impression that this character doesn't need to switch alignment, since he is possibly already evil right from the beginning, before committing any crime or even joining the monastery.

[hamishspence]

Or, as Pathfinder puts it:

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules/

Creatures with an evil subtype (generally outsiders) are creatures that are fundamentally evil: devils, daemons, and demons, for instance. Their redemption is rare, if it is even possible. They are evil to their very core, and commit evil acts perpetually and persistently. Mortals with an evil alignment, however, are different from these beings. In fact, having an evil alignment alone does not make one a super-villain or even require one to be thwarted or killed. The extent of a character’s evil alignment might be a lesser evil, like selfishness, greed, or extreme vanity.

[Conradine]

Is the non-evil faith in question neutral, or good? Does it train people with the understanding that they will use the skills they gain to become benefactors? Are there parts of their teachings that he intends to ignore because they conflict with his selfish goals?

Good ( I was thinking about Pelor ).
Yes, Pelor monasteries and temples expect - at very least - a moral behiavour from students, initiates and oblates.
Yes, he's planning to use whatever it takes.


WHat exactly are his evil "oppression" Plans? Because so far he seems classic selfosh true to Chaotic neutral to me.

Have you read The Crystal Shard?
He wants to do what Akar Kessel did, on a smaller scale ( since he hasn't access to an artifact like Creshinibon ):
kidnapping humans , goblins, mabye orcs, and create his little kingdom through magical coercion, mind-controlling drugs and indoctrination.
And sacrifice the elderly and the infirm for Dark Craft points.



It's not enough to consign someone to the Nine Hells. It says nothing about the other Lower Planes. Or a character's actual alignment.

According to Fiendish Codex pg 14 "A mortal's soul is condemned to Hell at the very moment she becomes lawful evil. ".
Pathfinder definition of alignment seems different from core 3.5 d&d.

[King of Nowhere]

if he has evil ambitions and he would like to implement them given the chance, I would say he's evil regardless of anything else. in fact, i would say this is perhaps the most important point in good vs evil: what do you want and what are you willing to do to achieve it.
Of course, if his evil ambitions are not particularly evil, and/or if he has other redeemming traits, he could be another alignment. people are complex, after all. It's also important whether he would really do it, and how he feels about that. Personally, I often feel like the world would be better off if I strangled some of my most rowdy students, but I wouldn't really do it :smallsmile:.

I can give you an undeniable example of a strongly evil person doing nothing evil and actually plenty of good for a long time and still be undeniably evil, taken from my campaign.
In my world, some 800 years ago an ambitious cleric of vecna studied a plan to ascend to godhood like his master. he determined that every person has a spark of divinity in himself, and by draining and collecting enough of those sparks, he could ascend. He made the calculations, and he realized he would need to drain several million people, in a short time frame. there's no way he could gather that many victims when the world's bigger cities had a few tens of thousands inhabitants at most.
so he decided the world needed to grow and prosper, and he needed to push it through that path. when he became high priest, he went public and officially made a big show of renouncing evilness, refluffing vecna as a god of knowledge with mild evil tendencies, in order to get a bigger creed. he developed spells that would improve agriculture and sanitation, and helped make them accessible to the public. He organized his clerics to start a public healtcare system. he promoted peace. he played nice to get a better public image. my world had several centuries of peace, prosperity and progress mostly because of his efforts.

And all the while, he did it because he wanted 5 million people within a 10-mile radius. that's what his ritual to become a god required. him starting the ritual was a major pivotal point of my campaign.

So, he did absolutely no evil for several centuries, and he did more good than most paladins can dream of. But I think everyone here would agree that he was strongly evil all along.

[hamishspence]

According to Fiendish Codex pg 14 "A mortal's soul is condemned to Hell at the very moment she becomes lawful evil. ".
Pathfinder definition of alignment seems different from core 3.5 d&d.

FC2 left out that plenty of LE people go to Acheron instead of Baator (possibly because they worship one of the deities that reside there, like Wee Jas or Maglubiyet).

Also, from the same sidebar (The Moment of Damnation):



Individuals raised in lawful evil societies typically take the decisive step toward damnation upon reaching the age of reason. However, one must actually commit evil acts to incur the torments of Baator; merely thinking bad thoughts does not incur damnation. Thus, lawful evil societies often have coming-of-age rituals designed to force their young men and women to commit evil deeds to win full adult status. Young men, for example, are often placed into barracks and encouraged to beat and torment weaker boys.


So, we know that by RAW it's possible to be LE and not have committed an Evil act. And we know that you can't get into Baator unless you have committed an Evil act.

[Conradine]

Thanks to everyone for the contribution, people :)

[Unavenger]

Conspiracy to murder is still a crime. Thinking about murder isn't. But I think the character's actions fall more into "conspiracy to do evil" than "thinking about evil". So I'd say it was an evil action. Whether or not that makes them an evil person, well, I don't like categorising people as good or evil without being vitally clear about what that means, so...

[DdarkED]

Conspiracy to murder is still a crime. Thinking about murder isn't. But I think the character's actions fall more into "conspiracy to do evil" than "thinking about evil". So I'd say it was an evil action. Whether or not that makes them an evil person, well, I don't like categorising people as good or evil without being vitally clear about what that means, so...

what parties were conspired with?

[Biggus]

To my mind, the key thing is intent: wanting to commit an evil act does not make you evil, nor does fantasising about it, or even making detailed plans of how you would do so. But the moment you decide to enact those plans, your alignment shifts towards evil. You may not instantly become evil, depending on how close to the neutral-to-evil borderline you were before that. If you have an attack of conscience and never put the plan into action, you're probably still ok.

When you commit yourself emotionally to the plan to the extent that you start putting it into practice, your alignment shifts further, especially if doing so involves evil acts. Obtaining the help of good people by deception certainly counts as an evil act.

Only when you actually commit a major act of evil however, do you cross the "moral event horizon" and your alignment inevitably shifts, regardless of what it was before or whether you still have good qualities in other ways.

Is the character showing any signs of doubt or pangs of conscience, or trying to justify to themselves that it's for "the greater good"? Or are they fully committed to their plan, forging determinedly ahead with it, and well aware that they're doing so solely for their own benefit? If it's the latter, I'd say they've already crossed the line into evil.

(As an aside: I agree with Graydeath than hedonism is not an evil act if it doesn't hurt anyone else. Power is more of a grey area, it depends what you want the power for.)

[Reversefigure4]

Based on your description, I am under the impression that this character doesn't need to switch alignment, since he is possibly already evil right from the beginning, before committing any crime or even joining the monastery.

This is where I sit. If you actively want to oppress people with your superior power (and making plans to acquire more power so you can oppress more people), you're probably evil anyway.

At the point where it's an idle fantasy ("I'd love to make that guy pay"), it's not evil. At the point where the only thing that lies between you and murdering your neighbour so you can sleep with his wife is the opportunity - waiting for the cops to not be looking - you're evil before you pick up the knife.

[Conradine]

To my mind, the key thing is intent: wanting to commit an evil act does not make you evil, nor does fantasising about it, or even making detailed plans of how you would do so. But the moment you decide to enact those plans, your alignment shifts towards evil.


I would say the progression is, more or less, this:

0- he begin as a normal human of humble origins ( peasants, farmers )

1- he starts joining the monastery to become "big" ( generically strong, powerful, superior to normal people ) with the clear idea of using the power for his own benefits, but without any specific idea

2- as he become more cultured and erudite, he gains the knowledge of "evil options" ( sacrifice, demonology, diabolism, liquid pain, soul trading, mind control ecc. ) and starts pondering these options

3- at some point he makes the decision of acquire these powers and starts actively studying dark magic ( but he does not starts praticing; no sacrifices or evil spell, just theoric study )

4- at some point he assumes his powers are strong enough, so he abandon the monastery and starts preparing the plan ( exploring the wilderness, selecting the right place, gather logistic and strategic information about human settlements and humanoid tribes in the area, ecc. )

5- final point, he starts doing true Evil actions ( kidnapping, mind-control ecc. )


The question is when exactly he becomes Evil.

[Biggus]

I would say the progression is, more or less, this:

0- he begin as a normal human of humble origins ( peasants, farmers )

1- he starts joining the monastery to become "big" ( generically strong, powerful, superior to normal people ) with the clear idea of using the power for his own benefits, but without any specific idea

2- as he become more cultured and erudite, he gains the knowledge of "evil options" ( sacrifice, demonology, diabolism, liquid pain, soul trading, mind control ecc. ) and starts pondering these options

3- at some point he makes the decision of acquire these powers and starts actively studying dark magic ( but he does not starts praticing; no sacrifices or evil spell, just theoric study )

4- at some point he assumes his powers are strong enough, so he abandon the monastery and starts preparing the plan ( exploring the wilderness, selecting the right place, gather logistic and strategic information about human settlements and humanoid tribes in the area, ecc. )

5- final point, he starts doing true Evil actions ( kidnapping, mind-control ecc. )


The question is when exactly he becomes Evil.

It's debatable, he clearly has some evil tendencies from the beginning, but I'd say 3 is the point where he's definitely crossed the line.

[Rebel7284]

Stage 3 in my opinion

[tiercel]

Agreeing with the general consensus that accruing power in and of itself is not necessarily Evil. It may be that the person is *already* Evil, but being Evil doesn’t make all one’s actions Evil.

What the person does with the accrued power may, of course, be Evil, and it is possible that the means of gaining power could be Evilly done (if the character defrauds/harms others in order to gain power, for instance).

Admittedly, the Fiendish Codex “Evil points” is NOT my favorite take even on the already-contentious D&D alignment system, but I’d be leaning toward “is the character committing Evil acts?” evaluation of alignment. It’s arguable that intent colors the morality (or ethics) of any one act, but it’s hard to imagine an Evil person acting from solely Evil motivations while only ever committing Good acts.

—It’s easy enough to imagine an Evil character establishing a cover or doing apparently Good things for ultimately Evil/destructive ends, but the Evil comes *in* that twist, much less if the apparently-Good actions aren’t actually, e.g. non-Good motivated acts of apparent charity where gifts/donations are not given due to need, but only to those of apparent future use.

—————

As to the more specific “when is this character Evil” question, then, I’d note that typically a single Evil act does not suffice to Evilly align, so while active Evil conspiracy is potentially or arguably an Evil act, an Evil alignment presumably kicks in at (5) - not just Evil acts, but deliberate and sustained actual acts.

[ayvango]

Real life philosophy doesn't work in the D&D universe. Killing helpless children is a good deed if they come from inherently evil race.

[Biggus]

Killing helpless children is a good deed if they come from inherently evil race.

Is it? Where does it say that?

[ayvango]

Is it? Where does it say that?
Be sure. Holy word does exactly the thing and is inherently good. The spell is marked as [Good].

[Biggus]

Be sure. Holy word does exactly the thing and is inherently good. The spell is marked as [Good].

As Holy Word affects all nongood creatures, by that logic killing helpless children of neutral races is also a good act.

[Remuko]

Be sure. Holy word does exactly the thing and is inherently good. The spell is marked as [Good].

That just means casting the spell is good. What you do with that casting can still be evil. Just like you can use [Evil] spells to do good things.

[Conradine]

It's not the Rules As Written, but for sake of verisimilitude I would rule that animals and little children, rather than being Neutral, simply lacks an alignment since they haven't enough intelligence to make moral choices.

So, I would assume they are unaffected by spells who heavily relies on alignment like Holy and Unholy Word.

[SquidFighter]

It's more of an aside than an actual answer, but you could circumvent the whole ''plotting'' aspect of the situation.

Since you plan on using Pelor, I suggest you expose your player to the schism of the Burning Hate. Which explores the alleged ''Goodness'' of Pelor, and explains it as actual hate of the undead. This variant (that you can look up for more details) essentially hates all life, but manifests positive energy to fight undeath, tagging it as Good concerning spells.

Anyway, your player could ''learn'' its evilness by being recruited by this group.

Food for thought ....

[Segev]

Alignment isn't a prescription, and isn't determined by your actions. Alignment is a description, and is often revealed by your actions.

An evil person is willing to do evil things, and usually wants to do evil things. If he is restraining himself for his own purposes, but wouldn't if the situation permitted or called for it, he is not any less evil.

A good person is willing to do good things, and usually wants to do good things. It is rarer for good people to restrain themselves, because doing good things rarely leads to counterproductive thwarting of their good intentions. However, even if he is restraining himself for some reason (not exposing himself or others to harm by violating unjust laws in defense of others, for example), he can still be good for both his wish that he were more free to act on his good impulses, and for the longer-term good he promotes when it is more feasible to do so.

A person who is biding his time, learning and preparing to do evil, and who will do evil when he can do so safely (in his own mind), is evil. Others may not know it. He may hide it well. He may not hide it so much as not advertise it and have little to no opportunity to indulge it. But an evil person is the kind of person who would do evil given the opportunity to do so "safely." Just as a good person is the kind of person who would to good given the opportunity to do so productively. (Technically, people do do evil given any opportunity at all, and people who do do good given any opportunity at all, are also members of their respective alignments.)

Now, what might make your would-be evil monk who claims to be neutral actually neutral would be if he has this plan to do evil, he thinks about it in the abstract frequently, but when it comes to specifics, he always glosses over the actual evil parts. He shies away from them out of a fit of conscience that he denies he has, finding excuses, perhaps, not to do evil in pursuit of his goal. When the time comes to cast off the "disguise" and reveal his true evil nature, he...can't. Because he doesn't want to actually do evil, no matter how much he protests otherwise.

Such a person is neutral to even very misguided good.

Alignment describes what kind of person you are. We use actions to measure it because otherwise, all we have is the player's word for it, and if the player's word starts to sound like too much justification, we are prone to think he's trying to game something. Hence action-based metrics. But evil people are evil because they're the kind of person who would do evil where it suits their purposes. Good people are good because they're the kind of person who would do good given their preferences and opportunity.

[Conradine]

What about a person who doens't like doing evil things but keep that an option if that's the most convenient thing to do?

I mean, a selfish and amoral character who's for the most free of sadism and gratuitous malice, and would love to just have money, power, magic and girls threw at him for free...
but since these things aren't free, and the easiest path to power is through evil - or at very least totally amoral - actions, so be it.

In private he may also be quite a pleasant person. Friendly, accomodating, rational. He prefer to take low-profile actions, if possible. To hurt as little people as possible because having enemies is so stressful and dangerous. He may genuinely care for his friends, and do not betray them... unless absolutely necessary to save his own skin or achieve his goals.

But if the easiest road to success is paved with countless innocent corpses... well, that can be arranged.

[hamishspence]

What about a person who doens't like doing evil things but keep that an option if that's the most convenient thing to do?

Only commits evil acts for "Convenience" is quite compatible with 3.5 Evil:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil

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.

[Conradine]

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.

But that person isn't totally devoid of compassion. He has feelings for his friends, his lovers, his dog. He would gladly spare a Remove Disease if one of his friends fell ill. He would shred a tear of two if they happen to die.
Sure, if the choice is doing that or lose his life he would sacrifice all them without an instant of hesitation.
But he wouldn't like that. It would feel very bad.

He even dislikes inflicting unnecessary pain. It's the kind of person who would provide his sacrifical victims with some Sleep magic or narcotic drug, so they are spared the pain ( and he has not to hear the screams ).
He likes things clean.

[hamishspence]

But that person isn't totally devoid of compassion. He has feelings for his friends, his lovers, his dog. He would gladly spare a Remove Disease if one of his friends fell ill. He would shred a tear of two if they happen to die.

Still compatible with Evil by Savage Species's description:


An evil character or creature can be a loving parent (such as Grendel's mother) a faithful spouse, a loyal friend, or a devoted servant without diminishing their villainy in any way - this merely reflects the way in which people compartmentalize their lives and the fact that they behave in different ways toward different groups - brutalizing those they consider beneath them but treating their peers and loved ones with respect and affection.

[Grek]

You don't become properly Evil until you've actually (trying to) hurt someone. Reading books, making plans, preparing to do bad things - all of that is the path to evil, not the destination. While still in planning stage, you're Neutral (plotting a murder without having done it yet is enough to be Not Good), but until you follow through and are beyond the point of backing out, you're not(yet) Evil.

[Segev]

Neutral people can be perfectly willing to do evil to serve themselves (or their loved ones), but they can't be 100% comfortable with it. Neutral folks can do "necessary evil" and remain neutral. They can't do evil casually or constantly as a matter of convenience and remain neutral, however.

While reveling in evil is a good sign of being evil, it's not necessary. Being evil just requires a willingness to resort to hurting others when it serves your purposes. Being neutral doesn't mean never doing evil, but it does mean evil is a much-later resort than non-evil (but less personally convenient) means. Neutral people do care about others' suffering, and don't like to see it. Evil people either don't care, or like it.

[tiercel]

Alignment isn't a prescription, and isn't determined by your actions. Alignment is a description, and is often revealed by your actions.

There are some excellent points here, but I would assert the “determined/revealed by your actions” part is still debatable, especially for certain cases: those where someone wasn’t just “actually really Evil all along,” for instance.

When alignment *changes*, actions are a part of that, and I’d argue not necessarily purely a descriptive one. The decision to actually, really do something you might not have otherwise or previously done — a person certainly can allow or decide actions they have taken to define him or her (much less that actions aren’t taken in a vacuum; actions are often how others judge one, and how one reacts to that judgment is a part of one’s moral stance as well).

The point here I’m trying to make is that any given individual isn’t necessarily (and arguably, *isn’t*) intrinsically Good or intrinsically Evil. Everyone has the capacity for either or both, and where one lands is marked by the decisions one makes — and those aren’t only reflected by actions, but made concrete and real.

Heroes fall; villains are even redeemed. But neither of those happens “just” because of some internal decision, or even a chain of such: they happen because the once-heroic figure commits unforgiveable acts and/or does not even attempt to repent them, they happen because the wicked person truly sacrifices *of the self* for others. Without those condemning or redeeming acts, intent is still hypothetical, potential, and unactualized.

[Conradine]

Ok guys, the million dollar questions...

will the character ping the Detect Evil sensor of the other monks while is under training , or not?

[Segev]

I'm not trying to talk about "intrinsic" good or evil, though. I'm saying that alignment is about the kind of person you are. If you're planning to do evil, but haven't done it yet, and when the time comes, you do it with all the glee of completing a long-awaited plan, you always were evil. Since we have insight into the minds of characters - if nothing else, their player or the GM (if an NPC) theoretically knows what they're really like - we can make alignment judgments.

Where it gets into "he's not acting his alignment" is in two areas: 1) when there was inadequate communication about what is going on in the character's head to the DM, so the unrevealed difference between the DM's and the player's views on the alignments causes the DM to think the PC is playing against type; and 2) when the player is actually being deceptive or otherwise actively trying to disguise or justify behavior against his announced alignment while, for some reason, clinging to the one he claims.

Absent miscommunication and deliberate deception, we can judge alignments without having to wait for actions because we can discuss a character's inner motivations.

The OP's evil character is evil because he is planning to do evil, has no qualms about it save "it will interfere with my plans if I am evil too early," and will do evil when the chance arises to do so to further his aims.

This is, instead of a fall, a "twist." He's been hiding his evil schemes this whole time, and suddenly people will learn of them. If it were a fall, he'd not be planning evil, but would instead have ambitions that eventually he'd realize he could achieve through evil means, and would give into the temptation.

[hamishspence]

will the character ping the Detect Evil sensor of the other monks while is under training , or not?

Unless the monastery is one for paladins, they won't have an at-will Detect Evil ability.

[Segev]

Unless the monastery is one for paladins, they won't have an at-will Detect Evil ability.

Additionally, if you read detect evil, it specifies what pings on it. It isn't "every evil-aligned humanoid in the world." It requires you to have an aura generating class or racial feature, or to be particularly powerful or steeped in supernatural evil, or really, really vile in a way that REQUIRES action to achieve. Such as actively engaging in horrific evil right that moment.

Being evil enough to be planning great evil doesn't qualify by itself. You haven't actually stained your hands with deeds; you merely are the appropriate alignment to do so readily when the time comes.

[hamishspence]

In 2e or similar, yes. 3e doesn't have those provisos:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm

A "regular evil creature" of 10HD or less, will have a Faint aura.

[Segev]

In 2e or similar, yes. 3e doesn't have those provisos:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm

A "regular evil creature" of 10HD or less, will have a Faint aura.

Huh. Well, okay then. Yep, it would detect him, if you're positive he really wants to do those things he's planning and will have no qualms about it when the time comes.

[TheYell]

Gotta differentiate between Sunday-school morality which is based on total obedience to a benevolent deity in thought, word and deed, and Game Morality where you have no such obligation and stopping short of action may not cross any lines.

[Segev]

Gotta differentiate between Sunday-school morality which is based on total obedience to a benevolent deity in thought, word and deed, and Game Morality where you have no such obligation and stopping short of action may not cross any lines.

That also depends a lot on the sunday school. Consider that there's a difference between being good and being a paragon of good. Not every LG person is as devoted and zealously righteous as a paladin.

[Kaleph]

Ok guys, the million dollar questions...

will the character ping the Detect Evil sensor of the other monks while is under training , or not?

Make this ideal test. An efreeti comes RIGHT NOW and tells him: "listen, I can fulfill with a wish your dreams of power that obsess you, but this will have consequences" - and in the meantime shows him scenes of innocent people suffering because of his (future) evil deeds.

Does the monk say "no" or "YEEES PLEASE!".

It's being evil that influences your acts, and not vice versa. Regardless of game's mechanics, you do not become evil because you've killed an innocent, you kill an innocent because you are already evil in the first place.

[Nagog]

So the alignment chart is broken down into 9 alignments for the ease of use, but in truth there is a much larger spectrum. Somebody who is lawful good for the sake of being good and they believe in the law is much more lawful good than somebody who acts as such for fear of repercussion. They are both lawful good, but they are both very different individuals and vary on how lawful good they are. To that end, there really isn't such an alignment as Neutral, because either your completing your good acts for personal reasons, or you're doing evil acts for personal reasons. All in all, it's really up to your interpretation of it. For some interesting flavor, perhaps he becomes evil at the moment he first perceives himself as evil.

[Rebel7284]

perhaps he becomes evil at the moment he first perceives himself as evil.

This doesn't work. There are tons of folks who have done terrible atrocities for "the greater good" and consider themselves lawful good. In general, most humans are not good judges of our own character.

[ezekielraiden]

I would argue it is very slightly evil to, essentially, "steal" the secrets of an order by making vows you always intended to break, where those vows are specifically about only using the knowledge and secrets to do good. I don't see deception as inherently belonging to any alignment, but rather as a contextual act (e.g. lying to help another save face may be Lawful as long as the lie does not in other ways break law/custom). In this context, it's an ongoing and efforts deception to get power under false pretenses, and specifically to get power in order to coerce or dominate other sentient beings. It sounds like there is no remorse for this deception, and in fact the character *might* be pleased with himself for such a clever and (presuming it works) effective ploy. That makes this act, IMO, very slightly evil. Not enough to ping on Detect Evil, but it's the foot in the door as it were. I would absolutely use this act, and the lack of guilt/remorse, as evidence that the character's alignment has either shifted or was simply wrongly described from the beginning. If he goes on to do a genuinely and overtly evil act, like placing a sentient being under his permanent thrall or the like, I would feel comfortable declaring on the spot that the character had become (or revealed himself to truly be) Evil. (Of course I would inform the player in advance that the character is dancing a very, very fine line and there are likely to be Consequences, and that they should know I don't run games for Evil PCs so they *may* want to think about writing up a new character in case their current one becomes an unplayable Evil NPC.)

[Conradine]

Make this ideal test. An efreeti comes RIGHT NOW and tells him: "listen, I can fulfill with a wish your dreams of power that obsess you, but this will have consequences" - and in the meantime shows him scenes of innocent people suffering because of his (future) evil deeds.

Does the monk say "no" or "YEEES PLEASE!".

Let's ignore for a moment the whole "is the efreeti going to cheat me or not" issue and restrict the question to the mere moral problem.

He's not a sadist, neither a complete psychopath. The monk would slightly flinch at the sight of people suffering, but would quickly say "yes, I accept". He would feel a bitter taste thinking about those people, but he would do it anyway trying to focus on his desires.

[Segev]

Let's ignore for a moment the whole "is the efreeti going to cheat me or not" issue and restrict the question to the mere moral problem.

He's not a sadist, neither a complete psychopath. The monk would slightly flinch at the sight of people suffering, but would quickly say "yes, I accept". He would feel a bitter taste thinking about those people, but he would do it anyway trying to focus on his desires.

Evil with neutral tendencies. Likely viewed as "weakness" to be overcome.