What is EVIL?

[blackjack50]

I know this is done to death. But evil does not make one “evil” in the sense that you want the end of the world. It means you are self serving. Does anyone see the self serving aspect as the most important part of being evil?

[darknite]

If you have to ask...

I would not say it's self serving. I'd say the lack of empathy for the plight/wellbeing of others and willingness to harm others to further your own desires is a good start.

[Man_Over_Game]

If you have to ask...

Made me smile.


Good: Average people are worth sacrifice. Helping a person makes your world better. You ignore them only because you can't afford to help them.
Neutral: People are people, just like you. Ignoring them, and them ignoring you, is the most efficient way to make your world better,
Evil: People are a resource or an obstacle. Removing or using them is the best way to make your world better. You ignore them because removing/using them would be too expensive to be worthwhile.



I've heard the topic come up a lot, but that seems to be the simplest, down to earth definitions I've seen yet.


If you have a Good Cultist, a Neutral Cultist, and a Bad Cultist, and all of them need to make sacrifices:


The Good Cultist tries to find another solution, if possible, or is bitter about the experience.
The Neutral Cultist pushes back the remorse by believing in the necessity.
The Bad Cultist thinks of the success of the result, and not of the sacrifice made.

[Sigreid]

Evil is the complete disregard for the consequences your actions have for others because all that really matters is what you want. An evil person may lack the self awareness that it's all about themselves.

[DrLoveMonkey]

You light look at the dark and light triads of personality for a start. I think I’m DnD terms that makes sense to assign them personality traits, since god alignment doesn’t strictly define what actions you can and can’t take, but more your methods and desires.

[Demonslayer666]

I know this is done to death. But evil does not make one “evil” in the sense that you want the end of the world. It means you are self serving. Does anyone see the self serving aspect as the most important part of being evil?

No, self serving is not the most important part.

You can be self serving and not be evil, and you can be selfless and be evil.

It depends on what you are willing to do to others (particularly innocents) to achieve your goals that makes one evil.

[johnbragg]

If we're talking about Eevil in elfgames, then I'm going to lay down some postulates.

The world is magic, is responsive to mind.
We are all connected in some sort of medium--Force or Weave or Ether or whatever.
Power, information can be transmitted through that medium.
Everyone, to some degree or another, is connected to the medium.

Eevil isn't just being sociopathically self-centered. Selling your party to the dragon for a million gold pieces? Sure, that's evil, but not Eevil. Pulling the wings off of flies out of curiousity? Evil, but not Eevil. Pulling the wings off of flies to make them suffer? Eevil.

Eevil is what happens when you get a taste of inflicting cruelty, and the sensation is pleasant and you want more of it. Being cruel is it's own reward. It feels GOOOOD. You taste their pain, their agony, their terror.

It's addictive. And like most addicting substances, very often heavy users end up doing things that non-users see as completely irrational.

That, my friends, is why the BBEG monologues. Watching the heroes' or the captives' terror and pain as you monologue is the whole POINT of the Eevil plan. If you can get that next hit of Eevil, at the price of unleashing the universe-destroying terror that is locked behind the seal you're opening with the blood of a bunch of innocents, that's what you gotta do.

[Naanomi]

It gets complex with the cosmological evil thrown in, and of course it is a ton of grey area (from a mortal perspective anyways) but broadly I usually go with...

~Willingness and tendency to intentionally and willfully help others (defined as reducing suffering or increasing happiness; either individually or in a broader scale) even at your own expense is Good
~Unwillingness to invest meaningful personal resources in either aiding or harming others in a consistent intentional manner is Neutral
~Willingness and tendency to intentionally and willfully harm others (defined as increasing suffering or reducing happiness; either individually or in a broader scale) for personal gain is Evil

[Particle_Man]

I would flip the definition of Evil from "self-serving" to "lack of other-serving".

A Good person will serve or help others (including strangers) in need, without thinking "how can this instrumentally help me"? They will usually only hurt others if that in turn helps protect innocents or brings evildoers to justice. Even there they would avoid certain actions, even to evil-doers, as beyong the pale.

A Neutral person will serve or help those in their "in-group" (usually family and friends, sometimes "my D&D party") in the way listed above, but will likely not go out of their way to help those outside that group and if it becomes necessary to hurt then in order to serve their or their "in group"'s interests they will. So soldiers of country A will attack and kill soldiers of country B, because, hey, they are country B, not "one of us" like other country A citizens. Such soldiers would not attack other soldiers of country A, other things being equal. That said, there might be certain actions that they would avoid doing, even to an outsider/stranger, as "beyond the pale".

An Evil person has an "in-group" of one. They would not help others unless they can see how it instrumentally helps themselves more than doing some other action. They are limited in their actions by what they can get away with, by force or fraud. And thus no action is "beyond the pale" as such.

[Naanomi]

The problem (well... one problem) with defining in-group support as ‘neutral’ is that supporting ‘your own’ at the expense of others is one of the defining themes of both Acheron and Gehenna (lower, decidedly Evil Planes)... and that group support is at least as much an issue of Law as it is a Good/Evil position

[Corran]

Evil is the complete disregard for the consequences your actions have for others because all that really matters is what you want. An evil person may lack the self awareness that it's all about themselves.
Or inaction. Choices sums it up well imo.

[Damon_Tor]

I know this is done to death. But evil does not make one “evil” in the sense that you want the end of the world. It means you are self serving. Does anyone see the self serving aspect as the most important part of being evil?

Simply put, evil is when you take more than what you give, so yes, the most common sort of evil person is simply selfish. But that's also the least interesting. It's more interesting when the villain in question is NOT selfish, but acts in an evil way because he has a skewed perception of what he's taking, who he's taking it from, or why he's taking it.

[Millstone85]

I see it like that:

compassion--indifference--cruelty
■ Good ■ Neutral ■ Evil

[Damon_Tor]

Evil is the complete disregard for the consequences your actions have for others because all that really matters is what you want. An evil person may lack the self awareness that it's all about themselves.

I disagree: a villain who frowns and mutters about how civilian casualties are regrettable but necessary is no less evil than a villain who laughs while they burn, assuming both are willing to take the same actions to achieve the same goals.

[Trickery]

Evil is the complete disregard for the consequences your actions have for others because all that really matters is what you want. An evil person may lack the self awareness that it's all about themselves.

In D&D specifically, blind pursuit of your own interests is not enough to make you evil - that's just neutral. Evil specifically means that the person wants to cause harm to others for its own sake. You wouldn't call a grizzly bear evil despite it not giving a damn about you. But you would call the drow evil for wanting to enslave, subjugate, torture, and kill other races. And demons are evil by definition since they enjoy killing and sewing chaos.


I disagree: a villain who frowns and mutters about how civilian casualties are regrettable but necessary is...

Just neutral, actually. An evil villain wants to cause those casualties. That's part of the point.

[Damon_Tor]

Just neutral, actually. An evil villain wants to cause those casualties. That's part of the point.

So a neutral character can try to take over the world as long as he doesn't enjoy the process? Is that your position?

[Trickery]

So a neutral character can try to take over the world as long as he doesn't enjoy the process? Is that your position?

If it's done to further his own goals and he doesn't go out of his way to hurt people, then yeah. There's a big difference between that and a villain who wants to kill all elves just because he doesn't like their ears or attitudes.

To use a pop culture example, it's like the difference between the Thanos who thinks killing half the universe will actually help people in the long run and the one who wants to take revenge on Earth for foiling his plans. Some things a person does can't be considered good, like raising the dead. The reasons are the difference between evil and neutral.

[KorvinStarmast]

I know this is done to death. Indeed it has.
Matt Coleville has a good youtube video on alignment in D&D, wherein he points out that all the labels "good" and "evil" amount to is a means by which two people on oppisite sides of an argument keep score. The point is to smear or belittle another party with a label that has a negative connotation. I'll not reproduce his argument here, that's just a summary. His youtube channel is easily found.

To answer your question in the titie: I prefer to adapt Potter Stewart's approach to another topic. Substitute in the word "EVIL" for "hard-core pornography" and you'll find a better way, as a DM in D&D, to approach this topic. For RL moral philosophy, you'll want to look elsewhere.


I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.


~ Concurring, Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964).


When you and a player, or when you and a DM, have a disagreement on the badness, or the evilness over something going on, or a character's actions, or a characters motivations, stop finger pointing and have a conversation.

Why do you think this was, or wasn't evil?
Talk to each other, not at each other.

[Sigreid]

I disagree: a villain who frowns and mutters about how civilian casualties are regrettable but necessary is no less evil than a villain who laughs while they burn, assuming both are willing to take the same actions to achieve the same goals.

I would file that under the part of the evil person may lack the self awareness that what they want is all that really matters.

[Xihirli]

To use a pop culture example, it's like the difference between the Thanos who thinks killing half the universe will actually help people in the long run and the one who wants to take revenge on Earth for foiling his plans. Some things a person does can't be considered good, like raising the dead. The reasons are the difference between evil and neutral.

That example demonstrates the opposite of your point.
Thanos is very clearly evil. The fact that he’s also sad doesn’t change that.

Ras al Ghul, Claude Frollo, and Thanos are all evil. Their goals - the subjugation and termination of thinking, feeling creatures - are evil. In addition, they have poor judgement and think that their actions are necessary.

[GlenSmash!]

That example demonstrates the opposite of your point.
Thanos is very clearly evil. The fact that he’s also sad doesn’t change that.

Ras al Ghul, Claude Frollo, and Thanos are all evil. Their goals - the subjugation and termination of thinking, feeling creatures - are evil. In addition, they have poor judgement and think that their actions are necessary.

Agreed. What we have here is not a reason why a character is not evil, but a compelling reason why they choose to do evil.

[Nagog]

Let me put it into Comics terms for you (Because I'm a massive nerd):

The Joker is Evil, because he seeks destruction and chaos at the expense of others, even when it would otherwise hurt himself

Lex Luthor (for the most part) is Neutral, because he has a goal that is neither good nor evil (to have humanity stop using Superman as a crutch). The methods he uses are often evil and occasionally good, but his alignment is Neutral, as he, like many of the heroes of this universe, seeks for order and the betterment of humanity.

Superman is Good for obvious reasons.

[Moltenbrisingr]

Evil = Achieving your end justifies any means

[Whyrocknodie]

The opposition are Evil. We are Good. Quite straightforward.

[Man_Over_Game]

Agreed. What we have here is not a reason why a character is not evil, but a compelling reason why they choose to do evil.

I think that'd make sense in a "Good vs. Evil" context, but I think it makes less sense when you add Neutral as an option.

For example, three people, one of each alignment, is told they must do something bad for the betterment of all, like destroying a city to save a planet. How does each one respond?

[GlenSmash!]

I think that'd make sense in a "Good vs. Evil" context, but I think it makes less sense when you add Neutral as an option.

For example, three people, one of each alignment, is told they must do something bad for the betterment of all, like destroying a city to save a planet. How does each one respond?

I can't predict how each would respond. I can see too many responses of such variety that have nothing to do with an ethical scale even.

For example the Captain Kirk type regardless of Alignment would refuse to answer the question on the grounds that he doesn't believe in no win scenarios.

Kirk doesn't waste time thinking about about the trolley car.

[sithlordnergal]

So this is a rather curious question for me, because there is no black and white answer. Good and Evil are determined purely by society and beliefs, there are no absolute Good or Evil things. So that Orc who's raiding a village? They could absolutely be Lawful Good, and remain Lawful Good, provided their society is such that raiding is not considered an evil act, similar to Viking Raids.

EDIT: And yes, that absolutely means you can run into someone who would be "Chaotic Evil" in a Celestial, Good only realm, and find a Lawful Good Paladin in the Nine Hells.

[Fable Wright]

I feel Eberron had a good take on it.

Good and Evil, for mortals, is a sliding scale of empathy vs sociopathy.

Lex Luthor is Evil. He doesn't care about who gets in his way, it's for the best of mankind.

Thanos is Evil. Even if he has a loved one, he views the human cost of his actions as a statistic.

Superman is Good. He cares about humanity and the impacts of his actions.

Some jobs require a level of sociopathy. The repo man can't sympathize too hard or he doesn't do his job, and his job is, on the whole, beneficial to society.

Supernatural Evil is enforced sociopathy from day 1 of existence, which grows pretty monstrous over a few millennia of existence.

[Man_Over_Game]

I can't predict how each would respond. I can see too many responses of such variety that have nothing to do with an ethical scale even.

For example the Captain Kirk type regardless of Alignment would refuse to answer the question on the grounds that he doesn't believe in no win scenarios.

Kirk doesn't waste time thinking about about the trolley car.

This makes me think that Evil entities are willing to do the hard thing, when Good entities are both stubborn and in denial.

Like Adults vs. Children, if both were equally competent.

[Nagog]

This makes me think that Evil entities are willing to do the hard thing, when Good entities are both stubborn and in denial.

Like Adults vs. Children, if both were equally competent.

This mentality is what leads me to look more at goals and desires when determining alignment. If the goal is something that is evil, such as destruction, genocide, subjugation, etc. then they are evil. If their goal is something good, like the betterment of their race/planet/universe, it is good. That has it's own flaws, but that's the mentality I use.



I feel Eberron had a good take on it.

Good and Evil, for mortals, is a sliding scale of empathy vs sociopathy.

Lex Luthor is Evil. He doesn't care about who gets in his way, it's for the best of mankind.

Thanos is Evil. Even if he has a loved one, he views the human cost of his actions as a statistic.

Superman is Good. He cares about humanity and the impacts of his actions.

Some jobs require a level of sociopathy. The repo man can't sympathize too hard or he doesn't do his job, and his job is, on the whole, beneficial to society.

Supernatural Evil is enforced sociopathy from day 1 of existence, which grows pretty monstrous over a few millennia of existence.

This is a good example of the flaws of my earlier stated determining factors. Under those factors, Lex Luthor is Good. The MCU Thanos would also be considered Good, as while his methods were undoutably evil, they were, in his mind, necessary to bring about a good and altruistic outcome. In the comics, Thanos wants to eradicate life to impress Lady Death (Who is Hela from Ragnarok for you movie only fans). That rendition of Thanos would be considered evil by these scales because he seeks destruction and death for a selfish, personal reason.

[Trickery]

Agreed. What we have here is not a reason why a character is not evil, but a compelling reason why they choose to do evil.

There's a difference between having an evil goal and pursuing it for evil reasons. Otherwise you'll have to conclude that almost all of our ancestors are evil for glorifying war and wanting to wipe each other out.

Or maybe I can express this in a different way. is murder evil? There's a big difference between murdering the person who killed your family versus being the guy who murdered that person's family.

Intent is what makes a thing evil. If you merely think evil means doing something that has a negative outcome, then you first have to explain what negative means. Regardless, you end up with everything being evil and nothing being evil, depending on your perspective, because outcomes are relative. Intent isn't. Intent can't be proven, but we know exactly what evil intent looks like.

[Xihirli]

Aboleth are Lawful Evil. Their intent is to take back the empire they had before the gods defeated them. They try to accomplish their goal by means of brainwashing, subjugation, murder, torture, and deception.
Is there anything inherently evil about them forming an empire?
Well, that empire would be filled with slaves and destroy all civilizations the Aboleth could reach their tentacles around.
But the Aboleth don’t believe in the rights of other beings. Just like beholders and mind flayers don’t. In their mind, they are doing good - recreating the perfect civilization controlled by the heirs apparent to Piscaethces.
If evil was strictly intent, almost none of the creatures in D&D with “evil” in their names would be evil. Neothelids have the same intelligence score as about half the beasts in the monster manual and are only driven by their instincts just like a T-Rex. The difference? Neothelids explicitly feed on sapient life when they have the choice. Not because they’re sadists, but because it tastes better. Therefore evil cannot just be intent, it must look at results.

[Yakmala]

Evil is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

I once played a Lawful Evil agent of the Lord's Alliance, who in his mind, was constantly working for the greater good.

In his mind, good means protecting civilization from the the many evils that seek to destroy it. To him, civilization is a grand design, not an individual. He'd willingly sacrifice a village to save a town, a town to save a city. When the weak die facing the forces of barbarism that prey on society, he doesn't shed any tears. The strong survived, and by being strong, will bolster civilization as a whole, passing their knowledge and physical prowess onto their children.

And those who he considers the enemies of civilization, the orcs, goblinoids, giants, barbarians, etc, are shown no mercy. To let them live risks good citizens dying in the future. He realizes that other party members [good alignments] are often too squeamish to do what needs to be done, so, being altruistic [in his own mind] he gladly takes that burden upon himself, putting the prisoners to the sword.

[Particle_Man]

So this is a rather curious question for me, because there is no black and white answer. Good and Evil are determined purely by society and beliefs, there are no absolute Good or Evil things. So that Orc who's raiding a village? They could absolutely be Lawful Good, and remain Lawful Good, provided their society is such that raiding is not considered an evil act, similar to Viking Raids.

EDIT: And yes, that absolutely means you can run into someone who would be "Chaotic Evil" in a Celestial, Good only realm, and find a Lawful Good Paladin in the Nine Hells.

Well in the standard D&D realm there are evil and good things in the absolute and objective sense. Evil here is as real as fire.

[Tanarii]

Typically methodically taking what you want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.

Typically doing whatever you can get away with, without compassion or qualms.

Typically acting with arbitrary violence, spurred by your greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

[blackjack50]

If you have to ask...

I would not say it's self serving. I'd say the lack of empathy for the plight/wellbeing of others and willingness to harm others to further your own desires is a good start.

But at the end...you are still putting yourself above others. You can be empathic, but you must always come first. And that willingness to harm others of course. But it is about YOU. You are the most important being.

[Lord Raziere]

I'd say Evil is the inability to feel guilt for your actions.

The difference between a good person trying do what they see as right and an evil person doing what they see is right, is that when confronted with evidence that its not working and is only causing more suffering than it fixes, the good person stops.

while an evil person will just continue doing it, coming up with justifications to keep going no matter what the cost.

thats why good people draw lines they won't cross. and evil does not.

[False God]

Good and evil is about the value of others relative to the self.

Good sees others as higher value, with numbers representing ever increasing value. The more people in question, the higher their relative value to the self.

Evil sees others as lower value, with increasing numbers representing even lower value. The more people in question, the more they are regarded as useful idiots.

[Damon_Tor]

I'd say Evil is the inability to feel guilt for your actions.

The difference between a good person trying do what they see as right and an evil person doing what they see is right, is that when confronted with evidence that its not working and is only causing more suffering than it fixes, the good person stops.

while an evil person will just continue doing it, coming up with justifications to keep going no matter what the cost.

thats why good people draw lines they won't cross. and evil does not.

What would be your position on a person who feels no guilt and yet leads a virtuous life?

Not wanting to feel bad about something seems like a rather selfish reason for avoiding harming others.

[Lord Raziere]

What would be your position on a person who feels no guilt and yet leads a virtuous life?

Not wanting to feel bad about something seems like a rather selfish reason for avoiding harming others.

My position is that despite the moral importance of internal reasons to morality, is that an outside perspective of a person is the only perspective we have of judging anyone's actions. its why judges and courts need evidence that is not tampered with and so on. if a person leads a virtuous life already, the point is moot, they are by all appearances being a good person.

its only when we get evidence that the person is deceiving us that we know that they are evil. its why we don't like deception, because it messes with the only way we have of truly judging anyone, and why its considered bad to lie, because we have to assume innocent until proven guilty. alignment does not change this, especially in 5e where you can no longer detect evil.

morality is ultimately beholden to the information we have to make decisions upon, which is ultimately dependent on our perceptions. sometimes we have to have faith that appearances are what they seem and hope there is no dark thing under the mask.

its not something that....has a perfect solution.

[Naanomi]

Cosmological Evil in the Outer Planes sense (and, arguably, most of the mechanical ways we still see alignment) has components of actual typical behavior, intent and motivation of that behavior, reflection after behavior, hypothetical behavior... and some mystical factors as well... but isn’t entirely tied to any of them in a way that mortals can easily fully understand or accurately model

[sithlordnergal]

Well in the standard D&D realm there are evil and good things in the absolute and objective sense. Evil here is as real as fire.

Heh, I never run games like that. Sometimes it confuses players, sometimes it doesn't.

[Shoreward]

Let me preface this by saying I am by no means an authority on ethics. This is a complex question and I think what it comes down to is the reader's personal standard or school of ethical philosophy. Is intent the defining factor? The number of people who benefit from an act vs the number who don’t? The act itself, independent of its result or reasons?

As I read it, D&D has a way it defines Evil which, in brief, boils down to whether or not your character values life as a given in pursuit of their goals.

Good tends to care about the safety, happiness, and dignity of life, and weighs that when making choices. They care about those around them, and even if they don’t like them as people, those people still deserve the best if it can be provided without hurting anyone. They don’t revoke that respect, even if they must end a life out of necessity. All death and suffering is regrettable.

Neutral mostly cares, but only within the sphere of its immediate reach or in-groups. Sure, people deserve happiness, safety, and life, but they try not to think beyond what they can provide. Heck, some people are jerks. Creatures can absolutely have that respect revoked when they reveal they deserve it, and they won’t be too upset if a bad person carks it.

Evil doesn’t care. Evil may still love and have friendships, but it doesn’t respect the sanctity of life as a given. A thing is not deserving of respect and admiration until it proves that it is, and that respect can be revoked at any time. Creatures are not automatically ‘deserving’ of life and happiness, they have to earn it. Death may be regrettable, but from a personal sense, not a broader moral one.

My point is, Evil doesn’t take the last slice of pizza, it takes the whole box and makes you fight over it.

[Trickery]

I think part of the confusion is that 5e didn't give us good alignment definitions. Maybe the 3rd edition definition would be more helpful.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Or, evil is as evil does. That seems to be the D&D interpretation of the matter.

[TyGuy]

Evil
adjective
1.
profoundly immoral and wicked.
"his evil deeds"
synonyms: wicked, bad, wrong, morally wrong, wrongful, immoral, sinful, ungodly, unholy, foul, vile, base, ignoble, dishonorable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, degenerate, villainous, nefarious, sinister, vicious, malicious, malevolent, demonic, devilish, diabolic, diabolical, fiendish, dark, black-hearted

noun
1.
profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.
"the world is stalked by relentless evil"
synonyms: wickedness, bad, badness, wrong, wrongdoing, sin, sinfulness, ungodliness, immorality, vice, iniquity, turpitude, degeneracy, vileness, baseness, perversion, corruption, depravity, villainy, nefariousness, atrocity, malevolence, devilishness



Immoral
adjective
not conforming to accepted standards of morality.
"an immoral and unwinnable war"
synonyms: unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous, disreputable, fraudulent, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, unfair, underhand, devious; sinful, impure, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, degenerate, debauched, abandoned, dissolute, reprobate, perverted, indecent, lewd, licentious, wanton, bawdy, lustful, promiscuous, whorish

To define evil you have to define morality. Since we're hardly philosophers and we wouldn't agree even if we were it's probably best to stick to the big obvious items.
Theft
Violence (initiated)
Rape
Fraud
Vandalism
Threatening the above

[Tanarii]

As I read it, D&D has a way it defines Evil which, in brief, boils down to whether or not your character values life as a given in pursuit of their goals.What are you reading that makes you believe this?

My reading is that Good generally believes in both being morally right and not being selfish. Even Chaotic Good, they just believe in determining what's morally right individually. And Evil is always exceedingly selfish, although they may justify it.

I'm reading the PHB 9 alignment typical behavior descriptions to arrive at that. Because that's all D&D 5e gives us to define "what is EVIL?"

---------

(As a note, it's fairly typically that this thread is two pages in on a 5e forum, and I'm the only person to have provided the 5e answer.)

[GlenSmash!]

There's a difference between having an evil goal and pursuing it for evil reasons. Otherwise you'll have to conclude that almost all of our ancestors are evil for glorifying war and wanting to wipe each other out. I actually think that is true yes.


Or maybe I can express this in a different way. is murder evil? There's a big difference between murdering the person who killed your family versus being the guy who murdered that person's family.

Certainly but when you murder everyone of the same race as the person who murdered your family "for the greater good" regardless of your intent it's evil.


Intent is what makes a thing evil. If you merely think evil means doing something that has a negative outcome, then you first have to explain what negative means. Regardless, you end up with everything being evil and nothing being evil, depending on your perspective, because outcomes are relative. Intent isn't. Intent can't be proven, but we know exactly what evil intent looks like. Thee's in an age old proverb about pavement and Intent and where it leads.

[Waterdeep Merch]

All language is ambiguous by nature, and deciding on where the edges align and fray will always differ from people to people, culture to culture, group to group, and person to person. You can't have a concrete answer; it will have to be arbitrated, and the more it happens, the more arguments will inevitably crop up as a result. Attempting to have a concrete answer anyway will always, without fail, make for dubious cases that will require you to rethink the entire definition or just accept that there will always be exceptions, and that those exceptions won't always be fully agreed upon.

Even if you strongly disagree with them, just accept the DM's opinion at the table for whatever label they want to throw around. Their opinion is as good as any other, really. It should have no bearing on what your character thinks of themselves, nor should it constrain their thoughts or deeds.

[Trickery]

Thee's in an age old proverb about pavement and Intent and where it leads.

Which is why laws are laws generally regardless of intent. We have to make a distinction between evil and good versus chaotic and lawful. Laws are what happens when we try to codify fair play, but we all know that laws are subject to abuse - that's why judges have leeway.

But I do think we're getting a bit off-topic. As far as D&D is concerned, the act itself is what makes an action good or evil, and it lays out some things that it considers to be good and some others it considers to be evil in the 3rd edition definitions. So I still think the 3e alignment system was much better-explained.

[GlenSmash!]

Which is why laws are laws generally regardless of intent.

In developed nations this is true, in wartorn regions and throughout most of human history it was not.


We have to make a distinction between evil and good versus chaotic and lawful.

I do though I know mine is different from most peoples definitions. For me the good and evil axis is defined my personal morality, ie this is what I choose to do, and the law vs chaos axis is defined as worldview ie this is how the world should work. To me a chaotic good character personally does good but does not think their definition of goodness needs to be enforced by society. A lawful good character personally does good and thinks that society would be better if laws enforced that goodness. Likewise chaotic evil will engage in evil regardless of the bounds of society while lawful evil will try to force society to serve their needs.


Laws are what happens when we try to codify fair play,

I think for most of human history this is false. Laws primarily existed to legitimize practices that were evil, such as slavery, and exercise control over those who had less power than the few who consolidated power. Only very recently has that changed.


but we all know that laws are subject to abuse - that's why judges have leeway.

I think this is also a recent development in history.


But I do think we're getting a bit off-topic. As far as D&D is concerned, the act itself is what makes an action good or evil, and it lays out some things that it considers to be good and some others it considers to be evil in the 3rd edition definitions. So I still think the 3e alignment system was much better-explained.

I actually love 5E's alignment changes.

Now it's two sentences to help guide roleplaying. Becoming descriptive rather than prescriptive. So that personal definition above is just foe me. I don't think it needs to apply to anyone else.

However the OP asked "What is EVIL?" not "How do I so evil in 5e?" to answer the latter question I think Tanarii nailed it.

[Hail Tempus]

Which is why laws are laws generally regardless of intent. We have to make a distinction between evil and good versus chaotic and lawful. Laws are what happens when we try to codify fair play, but we all know that laws are subject to abuse - that's why judges have leeway. The intent (or mental state) of an accused is one of the main factors in determining whether they committed a crime and, if so, its severity.

Someone who, for example, commits a pre-meditated murder of a witness to prevent them from testifying is more culpable, morally and legally, than someone whose intention was to beat up someone in a bar fight, but ends up killing them instead.

In the D&D approach to evil alignments, Lawful Evil characters would be the most morally culpable for their evil actions, since they're typically portrayed as thinking through their crimes beforehand. Strahd von Zarovich plans his evil acts out ahead of time, while a Chaotic Evil Demon is more of a creature of impulse.

[GlenSmash!]

This makes me think that Evil entities are willing to do the hard thing, when Good entities are both stubborn and in denial.

Like Adults vs. Children, if both were equally competent.

If you are only considering the worldly consequences of your actions this is true, but on a cosmological scale it might not be.

If you wipe out a city to save a nation or win a war you the net effect of your action in the world may indeed be greater good, but what about the price of the soul. in a cosmic sense it may be better to lose more lives to whatever afterlives await them than to risk damaging one's chance of attaining that afterlife to save those lives. After all even the worst worldly consequences are finite compared to eternity.

It's an old debate really. Consequentialism vs. Deontological ethics.

[DracoKnight]

This is, I think, one of the most useful dissections of EVIL! I've ever seen, outside of a full on philosophy class.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVuF4fkRD2c&t=224s

[GlenSmash!]

This is, I think, one of the most useful dissections of EVIL! I've ever seen, outside of a full on philosophy class.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVuF4fkRD2c&t=224s

I do enjoy discussing it.

For reference I prefer to play Neutral or Evil characters as I find them to be far more interesting (though I never player Chaotic Stupid) than good characters.

For example what about the person who tries to be really good in most situations, but when the chips are down and whenever the moment of truth arrives, while always take the easier evil way out often brutally so. Or as I prefer to think of it "How many people do I need to help to offset the occasional brutal murder?"

[Naanomi]

(As a note, it's fairly typically that this thread is two pages in on a 5e forum, and I'm the only person to have provided the 5e answer.)
And as normal, I’ll remind that alignment still has cosmological and mechanical implications that at the very least stretch those ‘RP guide for typical behavior’ boundaries :smallwink:

[Trickery]

The intent (or mental state) of an accused is one of the main factors in determining whether they committed a crime and, if so, its severity.

Someone who, for example, commits a pre-meditated murder of a witness to prevent them from testifying is more culpable, morally and legally, than someone whose intention was to beat up someone in a bar fight, but ends up killing them instead.

In the D&D approach to evil alignments, Lawful Evil characters would be the most morally culpable for their evil actions, since they're typically portrayed as thinking through their crimes beforehand. Strahd von Zarovich plans his evil acts out ahead of time, while a Chaotic Evil Demon is more of a creature of impulse.

While that's true, it's also true that murder still carries a heavy punishment even when it's accidental. There are degrees to murder, but it's still murder. And not all laws have as much nuance. Our theft laws, for instance, are broken down more by what was stolen and how rather than by the reason it was stolen. Even if you're stealing medicine for your sick daughter, you can be charged.

Regarding lawful evil being worse than chaotic evil, I've never heard that argument before. Nor do I think I've met a player who would feel better about killing a vampire than about killing a demon. if anything, players seem to be more tolerant of sophisticated characters regardless of how evil they are. To use a pop culture example, Darth Vader gets a pass for his behavior because he's cool and articulate, but no reasonable person feels bad for the hoards of orcs killed in Lord of the Rings.

[KorvinStarmast]

Evil is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. The center eye, or one of the stalks? :smallbiggrin:

[Hail Tempus]

Regarding lawful evil being worse than chaotic evil, I've never heard that argument before. Nor do I think I've met a player who would feel better about killing a vampire than about killing a demon. if anything, players seem to be more tolerant of sophisticated characters regardless of how evil they are. To use a pop culture example, Darth Vader gets a pass for his behavior because he's cool and articulate, but no reasonable person feels bad for the hoards of orcs killed in Lord of the Rings. The Chaotic Evil Demon or Hill Giant is capable, and willing, of performing brutal, senseless acts of violence and depravity, which many Lawful Evil characters would find distasteful. But, generally speaking, Chaotic Evil monsters in D&D are either that way due to their nature (such as Demons) or due to a limited cognitive abilities (Hill Giants).

On the other hand, it's the Lawful Evil characters who make plans and commit large-scale atrocities. They're not creatures of impulse. Cool calculation of evil leads to much higher body counts. To them, the death of a beloved family member or loyal retainer might be a tragedy, but a million dead Dwarves? That's just a statistic.

[Mercurias]

I know this is done to death. But evil does not make one “evil” in the sense that you want the end of the world. It means you are self serving. Does anyone see the self serving aspect as the most important part of being evil?

Evil and self-interest are sometimes a matter of degree. A lot of things could be considered evil OR neutral depending on the character and/or the situation, which is one of the reasons these threads all turn into internet yelling matches.

My own DM harpooned me with the fact that my Sorcerer was probably an evil character the other night. After all, he’s been a grifter to get by for years and cares more about his own survival than that of most of the people around him. He might not be a MONSTER, but conning people out of their money is pretty universally considered a bad thing.

I actually liked being called out. It helped me evaluate how I play the game, because a lot of the time lean hard on neutrality for small evils in the game. If you set a pervasive pattern, though, of doing much more harm to people than good, then you’ll end up crossing the line.

[Trickery]

Evil and self-interest are sometimes a matter of degree. A lot of things could be considered evil OR neutral depending on the character and/or the situation, which is one of the reasons these threads all turn into internet yelling matches.

This is a good point. But I'd make the case that, in a civilized society, acting in your own self-interest and being a good citizen are compatible. If you're smart and driven, you can become a surgeon or similar and make a lot of money for yourself while also serving society. Ender's Game had a good example of this kind of character. Ender's brother is all kinds of evil but still ends up serving mankind because doing so was the best thing for him personally. Similarly, Doctor Doom of Marvel fame has, canonically, turned the country he rules into a paradise without crime, hunger, or disease. After all, the better his subjects' lives, the more they'll worship him.

I point this out to show that there's a difference between serving your own interests, which I consider to be neutral, and actively wanting to hurt others, which I consider to be evil.

If merely acting in your own interests with no regard for others is enough for us to call it evil, then we won't have a descriptor strong enough for the terrible things people sometimes do.

[GreyBlack]

What is Evil?

Campaign dependent.

[Tanarii]

And as normal, I’ll remind that alignment still has cosmological and mechanical implications that at the very least stretch those ‘RP guide for typical behavior’ boundaries :smallwink:Correction, second poster. (I saw your posts but didn't think they were a book reference.)

I didn't really follow alignment discussion prior to 5e, but if this is what it was like in 1e thru 4e, with people just making up their own definitions and not even reading what the book had to say, that would explain why so many people can't stand it. (Or conversely, maybe those versions of alignment were just more fubar than I recall.)

[Prince Vine]

This is a good point. But I'd make the case that, in a civilized society, acting in your own self-interest and being a good citizen are compatible. If you're smart and driven, you can become a surgeon or similar and make a lot of money for yourself while also serving society. Ender's Game had a good example of this kind of character. Ender's brother is all kinds of evil but still ends up serving mankind because doing so was the best thing for him personally. Similarly, Doctor Doom of Marvel fame has, canonically, turned the country he rules into a paradise without crime, hunger, or disease. After all, the better his subjects' lives, the more they'll worship him.

I point this out to show that there's a difference between serving your own interests, which I consider to be neutral, and actively wanting to hurt others, which I consider to be evil.

If merely acting in your own interests with no regard for others is enough for us to call it evil, then we won't have a descriptor strong enough for the terrible things people sometimes do.

Another fun book character who often worries about the line is Harry Dresden in The Dresden Files, especially in any of the plots involving psychomancy or fallen angels (or really any of the temptations of power FOR THE GREATER GOOD!)

[Lord Raziere]

This makes me think that Evil entities are willing to do the hard thing, when Good entities are both stubborn and in denial.

Like Adults vs. Children, if both were equally competent.

Or considering the trolley cart is just a failure to be good by being too cautious and callous.

its thinking too much. in a real heroic situation, you just act to do the best you can possibly can, there is no time to consider how they will end. anyone who stands out wondering whether its a good idea to save someone than just saving them isn't acting fast enough.

Edit: also a key flaw of the trolley problem, and of well-intentioned extremist villains, is the lack of sacrificing your own life. because often these extremist villains, they sacrifice other people for their utopia or good goal or whatever....but almost never themselves. heroes as constantly shown in media, are people who put their own lives on the line first. like it or not, its very martyr-like behavior, and a hero is a hero because they put their own life in danger over others.

a hero in the trolley problem would be someone who instead stops the trolley from killing either of the people on the tracks with their own life. this is because sacrificing others lives when you wouldn't sacrifice your own is hypocritical. therefore the trolley problem isn't adequately designed for a heroic mindset, as they aren't thinking "this person vs. these five people" they're thinking "these six people vs. myself". perhaps in the trolley problem if the one person on the other track calls out "throw the switch! save them!" they would be the hero in that tale, taking the voluntary self-sacrifice so that five people don't have to die, but only if they do that.

[Shoreward]

What are you reading that makes you believe this?

Apologies, my opinions on alignment come from the more in-depth definitions of earlier editions. Good implying "respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" was a key part of 3rd edition's definition of that axis and it's the one that Planescape also ascribed to. Evil, by contrast, lacked that compassion.

I appreciate that 5e is the edition on the table here, but a discussion of alignments isn't going to be limited to a single edition due to how far back the body of work is when it comes to understanding them.

However, we're still in business! If we're limited only to the text of 5e and nothing else, 5e still has relevant things to say in the form of background ideals. With that in mind, Good ideals are identified with things such as charity and altruism, seeking happiness for others, and the belief that all beings deserve respect/happiness:


"Respect. People deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. (Good)" (PHB p.132)
"Respect. Respect is due to me because of my position, but all people regardless of station deserve to be treated with respect. (Good)" (PHB p.136)
"Greater Good. It is each person's responsibility to make the most happiness for the whole tribe. (Good)" (PHB p.137)


One of the Neutral ideals (PHB p.129) is "I'm loyal to my friends, not to any ideals, and everyone else can take a trip down the Styx for all I care." This supports the idea of Neutral as being focused on their 'in-crowd to the exclusion of those outside it without being branded as Evil, and it's not the only time this exact sentiment is expressed in an ideal (see p.133)

But hey, maybe that's not enough to say that self-interest alone isn't Evil. That's fair. But then we have page 138 and 141, which give Neutral ideals that looks like this:


"Knowledge, the path to power and self improvement is through knowledge. (Neutral)."
"People. I help the people who help me--that's what keeps us alive. (Neutral)"


This is directly contrasted with another ideal on page 138: "Power. Knowledge is the path to power and domination. (Evil)"

What this indicates to me is that Evil is more than self-interest, it's self interest to the exclusion of the well-being of others (i.e, domination.)

Greed appears multiple times in ideals tagged as evil, but so too are ideals of domination, and a clear attitude of people having to earn their place through power rather than as a given, and a lack of respect for life that's too weak to defend itself:

"Might. The strongest are meant to rule. (Evil)" (PHB p.137)
"Might. If I become strong, I can take what I want-- what I deserve. (Evil)" (PHB p.132)
"Retribution. The rich need to be shown what life and death are like in the gutters. (Evil)" (PHB p.141)


It's not the alignment descriptions alone that I can draw my understanding from, but the rest of the book, too. The alignments give short responses based on the position within an axis, rather than really saying what those axes mean when they're dragged out kicking to answer for themselves.

So look, I've already gotten way too pedantic, and people are still going to find exceptions all over the place. I'm not going to understate that greed and selfishness are a big part of Evil as-written, but I think it takes more than base selfishness alone to qualify, and the book supports that interpretation. People are welcome to come to their own conclusions from the text. It's why I preceded my original statement with a sort of hand-wave. I fully admit I may be completely off-base, but I've found my definitions helpful for myself and that's enough for me.

But I've already spent way too much time answering the question of 'what I read that made me believe that', so I'm going to eat some pizza. Speaking of which, I wonder if those guys stopped fighting over it yet. I hope not, I still haven't booked the matches.

[Tanarii]

A solid 5e-based explanation with citations may or may not pedantic, but at least it's relevant, as opposed to off topic for the forum. Very well done and a pleasure to read.

Also good counter point that Backgrounds provide us with more info on Alignment. I've referenced that myself before and I shouldn't forget it in these threads.

[Great Dragon]

Good: Average people are worth sacrifice. Helping a person makes your world better. You ignore them only because you can't afford to help them.

Neutral: People are people, just like you. Ignoring them, and them ignoring you, is the most efficient way to make your world better

Evil: People are a resource or an obstacle. Removing or using them is the best way to make your world better. You ignore them because removing/using them would be too expensive to be worthwhile.


This is a less complicated version of my definition. Adding to Ancient Realms Thread.

(I just stared reading, so will most likely edit I more comments later.)

[Kane0]

Evil is when a fiend looks at you with approval.

[DracoKnight]

Evil is when a fiend looks at you with approval.

And THIS is why I was shocked that Omin's alignment is Lawful Neutral not Lawful Evil because a couple of live shows ago, exactly that happened to him when he out-lawyered a fiend for extremely self-interested reasons.

[noob]

Evil is whatever I do.
Good is whatever the other people do to kill as many people as possible.

[PeteNutButter]

Many people tend to fall into one or two major camps on what is evil.

Either evil is selfishness (as opposed to the selflessness of good), or its malice/malevolence (as opposed to the benevolence of good). Both have their points.

Untempered selfishness can lead to some seriously evil stuff, including complete disregard for the lives and welfare of others. On the flip side, real general malice (without personal gain) isn't selfish, it's just malicious. While rare, this sort of thing does exist in the real world, most notably in things like serial killers. Those in the "selfishness" camp might claim that serial killers are just CE, which can account for some, but not all of real life serial killers, but it doesn't account for real life LE malice such as evil dictators hellbent on this like extermination for extermination's sake. Additionally, it doesn't account for the LE devils who are likely malicious but still LE. To me that concludes that the Evil = Selfish is either wrong or at least incomplete.

On the other hand Evil = Malice doesn't account for rational folks who do all sorts of terrible things, just to get what they want. This would exclude the "end's justify the means" villains from actually being evil, and that seems to be a stretch.

To sum up, I'd say there are several ways to be evil, some perhaps more evil than others. The same could be said for good and neutral, or law and chaos, I suspect.

[Beleriphon]

Let me put it into Comics terms for you (Because I'm a massive nerd):

The Joker is Evil, because he seeks destruction and chaos at the expense of others, even when it would otherwise hurt himself

Lex Luthor (for the most part) is Neutral, because he has a goal that is neither good nor evil (to have humanity stop using Superman as a crutch). The methods he uses are often evil and occasionally good, but his alignment is Neutral, as he, like many of the heroes of this universe, seeks for order and the betterment of humanity.

Superman is Good for obvious reasons.

In fairness Luthor's goal isn't actually to help humanity to stop using Superman, its to show humanity that he's the best human that has ever human'd since humans have human'd. He gets tied up in knots knowing that he, the greatest human, is shown up by some flying idiots in tights.

Luther is evil, he's just less evil, and vastly more pragmatic, than other DC villains. That is untill the current run of Justice League. Luthor is actively trying to end the multiverse because he thinks the multiverse is about Doom rather than Justice. He's trying to destroy everything because he thinks he's right, not for any other reason but to prove a point.

To look at evil further using DC comics. I'm going to highlight the important part of the two-part alignment as I see it.

Lex Luthor is Lawful Evil. The man is self serving in the extreme, nothing he does is about helping people. Helping people is just a side effect of being a megalomaniacal genius how looks out for number one. Luthor is about rules, and using rules to get his way. The rules are the reason Superman can't just fly up to Luthor and have him arrested. But Luthor uses to the rules to his advantage, and if some peons get squashed so be it, they weren't important. Luthor is usually depicted as seeing himself as the most important man in history.

Darkseid is Lawful Evil. Darkseid is. The Lord of Apokolips is of course all about rules, his rules, and he doesn't care that his rules hurt you. In fact they're probably supposed to hurt you, because Darkseid Is.

R'as al-Ghul is Neutral Evil. R'as is about doing whever needs to be done to fix the world the way he sees fit, with himself and his heirs as rulers. He isn't overly attached to rules and structure, but is willing to use it to achieve his goals. He's also willing to use completely non-structured means, change plans half-way through, and engage in any tactic he think will achieve his goals.

Deathstroke is Neutral Evil. Deathstroke is an assassin, he kills people for money. He has a certain code he follows, but he's willing to break that when he thinks he has to. He's not outright malicious, but at the same time he's not above petty revenge, or killing innocent people to get to his target. He's manipulative to the extreme (see new Teen Titans where he's trying to goad Robin to kill him, so Slade can escape and kill the Teen Titans).

Joke is Chaotic Evil. I think we can all agree on this one. Joker is out to do whatever makes him feel good, Batman feel bad, and cause general panic and mayhem. He's not concerned with who dies when he does so, and actively works to kill people. He even knows what he's doing, he just doesn't care at all.

[Great Dragon]

I find that using the various comic book Villians as examples for D&D Alignments is, frustrating.

Like 90% of Batman's baddies are some extreme case of mental (or social) disorder.
It's still fun trying, though.
Especially for long term Villains.
Some of the interpretations can be .... Interesting.

Like my favorite:
2Face LN (E)
This guy was supposed to represent the failure of the Justice system.

2Face was the truely Dark reflection of Batman.
Batman worked outside the Law, but always with the Goal of Greater Justice. (And the personal Oath of Never Killing)

2Face was forced to work outside the Law, because that was the only way for him to achieve personal Justice.
(Like the crime boss on Trial got off on a technicality, and was never even charged for Assault for throwing Acid into the Prosecuting Atterney's face.)

2Face had both sides of the Law in conflict in his head, Balanced to the point of needing his double headed coin to choose between them.

Now, I'm not going to claim to have read every comic, or seen every Cartoon, TV show, and Movie. (Plus, as time went on, things in society changed - which then changed the focus of the Story, and on down to some of the Characters)

Riddler always seemed LN.
Like Lex, this guy just had to prove he was the smartest, most clever Human ever.
But, always within the Rules of a Riddle.
Batman constantly figuring his riddles out, really got his goat!!!

[Beleriphon]

Riddler always seemed LN.
Like Lex, this guy just had to prove he was the smartest, most clever Human ever.
But, always within the Rules of a Riddle.
Batman constantly figuring his riddles out, really got his goat!!!

Riddler might be lawful neutral, but I'd honestly lean towards Lawful Evil, if only because he typically resorts to casually murdering his goons and bystanders when it comes right down to it. Remember, a great many of his riddles are something linked to a giant bomb that Batman has to disarm. The fact that he has a psychosis related to his need to tell riddles and prove how smart he is doesn't in and of itself absolve him of being a murderer.

Two-Face again probably lawful evil, although I can see neutral evil given that he does anything he thinks he can get away with. The coin flip is again a psychosis but its also Harvey's way of absolving his behaviour and justifying being Two-Face.

At any rate most of Batman's villains are related to some kind of psychosis and elements of the human psychology. Whether that is ultimately intentional on the part of the writers, or just how it turned out I can't say. Unabashedly though I'd call all of them evil. Some of the to a greater or lesser extent, some willing to turn a new leaf, some able to be redeemed, but all evil as of the most recent issues in Batman #75 and Detective Comics #1012.

As for what makes a character evil in D&D contexts: an inability to see the value of other life, or disregard of other creatures to the point that they are viewed as obstacles to be removed as soon as possible; and those that aren't obstacles are tools not people.

Contrast this to a neutral person: sees the value of other life but doesn't go out of their way to make it better other than for a select group of friends/family/community. A Neutral person wants Good neighbours but doesn't necessarily want to go out of their way to be that neighbour.

[Great Dragon]

This is great!!

I tend to have long winded Ramblings.
(More in my Ancient Realms (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?591658-Ancient-Realms) thread, if interested.)

I agree that Psychosis as an Excuse for being Evil, is just that. An "I can't help it" excuse.

One thing that I've always thought, is that it's the Long Term behavior of a Character that really sets their Alignment.

Nobody's perfect, so the occasional breaking away from normal behavior, isn't going to change a (D&D) Character's Alignment. Constantly doing such breaks, does. Regardless of Excuses.

Like someone pointing out that 2Face (Champion Fighter/Arcane Trickster Rogue?) tended to abuse and even Kill minions, in a burst of Anger. Usually after having just escaped Batman. And, Riddler (Lore Bard) too, as you pointed out.
Joker (Inquisitor Rogue?) was the most consistent about this. But most of his minions tended to be "insane" CN.

This seems to be a repeating theme with Batman's Villains that had minions.
While it was mostly verbal, even Penguin NE (Noble, Mastermind Rogue?) would abuse the "Doves" in his service.

That's mostly how the old comic writers showed that these Characters were Evil.


*****
Now, I normally avoid discussing CN.
My opinion of this, especially in an RPG, doesn't seem compatible with anyone else's.

But, I'll go with Original concept of Catwoman (Thief Rogue/Shadow Monk?) usually falling here.
Very independent; She's more interested in the Challenge of the Heist, then the actual value of the item itself (except for cat themed items in the old Batman TV show, which might have more value to her than anyone else) She wasn't Malicious towards anyone that hadn't directly offended her (which even Good Characters can do).

Sure, it was possible to "redeem" her, but mostly because she had a crush on Batman.
Something to do with him being the Mysterious Bad***, while still (mostly) a Good Guy.


*****
Poison Ivy (Spore Druid?) seems to be on the edge between NE and CE.
She liked her Independence, even to the point of only having plant minions.(Freeze was more "hired help" in that movie with Arnald)
Supposedly an eco-defender, she tended to overlook her own harmful effects on the environment.


*****
Still lots more Characters to use….
I'll stop, for now.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I know this is done to death. But evil does not make one “evil” in the sense that you want the end of the world. It means you are self serving. Does anyone see the self serving aspect as the most important part of being evil?

Evil... Is an opinion. Sure, it's a fact within the cosmology of D&D (not just talking 5e here), but it is the opinion of the people who make the rules (the deities within the setting)

There are, what should be, evil acts that aren't frowned upon. Killing because it's the easiest solution to your problem, should be an evil act. Killing an evil race or creature for the sake of it, should be an evil act. But in D&D... A (good) deity will smile upon you and give you a thumbs up. Corellon and Orcs are a good example of this.

So, to really define evil within D&D, you have to realize that it's the opinion of the deities and you need to determine if you will play their game or not.

Maaaan, I feel like a certain cleric of Loki now.

We don't live in a world where the definition of good and evil are set in stone, we get to decide what is good and evil. This is why so many arguments pop up about alignment. The alignment system within D&D is fundamentally antagonistic to how the real world works. Good and evil in the real world are opinions made by mortals, yes, but they are made by mortals.

[Great Dragon]

Evil... Is an opinion. Sure, it's a fact within the cosmology of D&D (not just talking 5e here), but it is the opinion of the people who make the rules (the deities within the setting).

Maaaan, I feel like a certain cleric of Loki now.

We don't live in a world where the definition of good and evil are set in stone, we get to decide what is good and evil. This is why so many arguments pop up about alignment. The alignment system within D&D is fundamentally antagonistic to how the real world works. Good and evil in the real world are opinions made by mortals, yes, but they are made by mortals.

Yes, but... The majority of people playing an RPG (especially D&D) is to escape Reality, if only for a few hours a month.
IMO, changing the Name of "Acceptable" Behavior (Paladium) doesn't hide the fact that it's still Alignment.

See, the "Shades of Grey" of the Real World is exactly why Gygax (and to a degree, Arneson) created the "Set In Stone" Alignments. Most societies consider killing Bad, but all acknowledge the need to do so in a War, and so....

Because, once D&D went past Napoleon-style Warfare, the Alignment "Line" was needed.

The statement of "The Gods create Alignment" us just the Excuse In Game for why Alignment is enforced, by the DM. And, like you pointed out, on a World where Loki (etc) ruled, the definition of Alignments would be.... Different.
Another reason why a lot of DMs have Alignment being something beyond the ability for any Deity to affect.
Except their worshipers.

The Moral Trap of killing without need (and usually knowing it), is the foundation of what I have Geyron (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?591202-To-the-9th-(Plots)) (now a Demon, and not a Devil) set up on.

But, I suppose that I use these Moral Tests in other RPGs - is something some people will find annoying.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yes, but... The majority of people playing an RPG (especially D&D) is to escape Reality, if only for a few hours a month.
IMO, changing the Name of "Acceptable" Behavior (Paladium) doesn't hide the fact that it's still Alignment.

See, the "Shades of Grey" of the Real World is exactly why Gygax (and to a degree, Arneson) created the "Set In Stone" Alignments. Most societies consider killing Bad, but all acknowledge the need to do so in a War, and so....

Because, once D&D went past Napoleon-style Warfare, the Alignment "Line" was needed.

The statement of "The Gods create Alignment" us just the Excuse In Game for why Alignment is enforced, by the DM. And, like you pointed out, on a World where Loki (etc) ruled, the definition of Alignments would be.... Different.
Another reason why a lot of DMs have Alignment being something beyond the ability for any Deity to affect.
Except their worshipers.

The Moral Trap of killing without need (and usually knowing it), is the foundation of what I have Geyron (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?591202-To-the-9th-(Plots)) (now a Demon, and not a Devil) set up on.

But, I suppose that I use these Moral Tests in other RPGs - is something some people will find annoying.

Escaping reality doesn't really matter in this situation. Evil is an opinions of fictional characters within the game and don't necessarily follow real world morality because of that.

Which makes it better, honestly. Makes the system's world feel more organic.

Most real world societies do not see killing as "bad". They see killing "innocent" people as bad. They see killing as necessary, even if they don't like to talk about it or do anything about it (war, for example). The difference here is that in the game, killing the evil creature is a known good act, in the real world... It's not a known fact as we like to think vengeance/justice being served is the correct thing... Even if it's an evil act that is responding to something.

In the game it doesn't matter what you think is good or evil, it matters what the deities (coughrulescough) says is good and evil. In the real world it isn't like that.

[Phhase]

I break it down into more or less 3 stripes (The most basic evils you'll see in game).

Blood - The derivation of pleasure from the simple act of causing pain, killing, asserting dominance, etc. (NE)
Greed - "Mine! All mine!" (LE)
Chaos - "So, we all all enter the bar..." DM: "You see -" CE: "I set the bar on fire!" DM:"...you know the bar is full of people, right?" CE: "Duh, what would the point be otherwise?"

[Great Dragon]

Escaping reality doesn't really matter in this situation. Evil is an opinions of fictional characters within the game and don't necessarily follow real world morality because of that.

Which makes it better, honestly. Makes the system's world feel more organic.

<Snip>

In the game it doesn't matter what you think is good or evil, it matters what the deities (coughrulescough) says is good and evil. In the real world it isn't like that.

Interesting. See, the thing is, we still use Real World stories (including Myths and Modern Fiction) as Examples/Guidelines for Alignment.
Those escapism people are only avoiding the specific "Drama" associated with RL.


*****
The RPG Rules are really only there to help us Bridge the Gap between the Differences of Opinion to create a solid(ish) foundation for Greater Shared Gaming. Because without it, we end up being like the Kids in the street that end up fighting over how to Play.
(But, whatever works at your Table, is also good)


*****
I don't like where the Ruling Deity (Zeus, as portrayed by a DM) dictates the Rules/Laws for Alignment, and then ignore them when applying these to themselves.

Which is why I prefer to have Alignment a Cosmic Law, where even the Deities can't change - or ignore - them as desired.

Hera isn't Evil because she's upset with Zeus for constantly cheating on her.
She's Evil because she deliberately seeks to make every (Mortal) Man's (starting with Husbands) life miserable. Heck, most of the old Live Action Movies had it where Zeus and Hera "made up".

Hades is a little more difficult.
Now, Disney (First the man, and now the Corp) had him being Evil because he wants to Rule Olympus, and doesn't care if Mortals get hurt.
With Hercules doing the Heroes in Hell bit from my comments in my Ancient Realms Thread. (Where he can "Fight his way out" because he is Good)

But, I go more Old School.
Hades is Evil because he seeks every way possible to claim your Mortal Soul.
Taking over as King of the (Greek/Roman) Deities (using the Laws against them as much as possible) is just mostly a Hobby.
Hades can make a great BBEG.

But, then I see almost all the Norse Deities (including Odin) being Chaotic.
With maybe Heimdall and Hella being Lawful, and (my) Loki being NE.


I think the Book of Vile Darkness and the Fiendish Codex 2 did a good work in defining Evil.
Evil is serious, is intentional and is a free choice, at least for not-innately evil races.

I feel that is often underestimated how seriously wicked must be a person to gain the Evil alignment.

I can agree, for both CE and LE.
NE can totally be the "Greater Good" delusion, that still causes Grief.
I don't buy that "NE is the purist Evil" because Evil for the Sake of Evil still gets tainted with either "Selfish" (CE) or "Tyrant" (LE).

Sorry, folks, Neutral just doesn't care enough.

Another sensitive subject: Star Wars.
The Emperor was Lawful because he preferred to use the laws to get his way, he was Evil because all his Rules were meant to screw everyone - but especially the Jedi. The fact that he was a lousy Ruler, is beside the point; since he had enough Power and leverage to enforce his Rules, when truly needed.

Sadly, Vader makes a sad LE, being nothing more then just a willing puppet.

Tyranus/Duku was technically LE, but very much the (cowardly) manipulator, fighting only Jedi - or when forced to.

I didn't read everything on Maul, so I still tend to see him as CE.
Obeying only because he lacked the Power to take control.

See, Luke was NG - he wanted to help, but didn't have any real Plans on how to do so.
and as a "Jedi Master" he lacked any real Goals for the New Jedi Order, to actually make a difference.

Leah did have both Plans and Goals, and was fully committed to the Cause of a Better Galaxy.

The way Lucus wrote the Jedi Council, these were either hide-bound LN, or NG at best.
Yes, including our favorite: Yoda. The Clone Wars actually kicked Yoda and Windu out of their "emotionless non-involvement" and back into the LG that Jedi were meant to be. The sad part was, by the time they realized what needed to be done, Palatine had all the Cards.

As a side note, for those reading the Vader comics/novels - all the "Prisoners" that Vader found were there because the Jedi were willing to cause them misery to keep them away from Society, but unwilling to commit to killing them to protect future Innocents. Yoda was shown to be rather unhappy with this solution, but because he was in the Minority, he accepted it.


*****
Also, I do like the fact that 5e moved away from the "Inherited Evil" Races.
Where Alignment really is defined by Actions+Beliefs.
And you can believably play a LG Orc Redemption Paladin that isn't the Bossy "Awful Stupid" cliche.

[Conradine]

I think the Book of Vile Darkness and the Fiendish Codex 2 did a good work in defining Evil.
Evil is serious, is intentional and is a free choice, at least for not-innately evil races.

I feel that is often underestimated how seriously wicked must be a person to gain the Evil alignment.

[WSING1974]

Three people are sitting in a room, and someone brings in two cupcakes for them to share.

- The GOOD person says, "You two enjoy those cupcakes. I love cupcakes, but I can go without".

- The NEUTRAL person says, "We'll find a way to split up the cupcakes evenly. Or we'll draw straws for them. Or maybe we'll decide based on who hasn't eaten in the longest time. In any case, we will decide on a fair way to split the cupcakes".

- The EVIL person says, "I am definitely getting a cupcake, because I deserve one. You two can fight over the remaining one. (And if I can figure out a way to trick you out of it, I'll eat both of them myself. You two don't really NEED a cupcake, anyway)".

The GOOD person will sacrifice his own good to benefit others. The NEUTRAL person wants fairness for all, and includes himself in that equation. The EVIL person will get what he wants, even if it is detrimental to others.

The really important part is that THEY ALL SEE THEMSELVES as GOOD. Each person here believes that the result they want is fair, in their own minds. Everyone is the hero of their own story, and no one ever sees themselves as the bad guy.

[GlenSmash!]

The really important part is that THEY ALL SEE THEMSELVES as GOOD. Each person here believes that the result they want is fair, in their own minds. Everyone is the hero of their own story, and no one ever sees themselves as the bad guy.

I don't know if they all see themselves as good. I think a lot of those that are evil and neutral would say that "Good" doesn't matter, or doesn't exist it's just a social construct. So why should they bother trying to be good? Why wouldn't they just do what makes sense?

Even besides those I think there are those that know they are evil, but see it as necessary. like the Operative from the movie Serenity who said "I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done."

Or those like the aforementioned Joker. I think the Joker knows he is evil and revels in it.

There are many shades of evil, and many reasons for choosing to do evil.

[Great Dragon]

There are many shades of evil, and many reasons for choosing to do evil.

I'm not a good enough Debate-ist (especially through text) to go too deep into the Shades of Grey (perspective) "Where's the Line, and how close can I get?" (On any Side: Law vs Chaos, Good vs Evil, and combinations) argument.

I find that doing so at the Table, just burns the entire gaming session, and everyone (except maybe the one making Alignment exception arguments) walks away unhappy.

Me, I'd much rather just Play, even as the DM.
Serious about forging those details out with me? Fine: meet me on a non game day, and we can discuss the details.
(This forum counts as non gaming day related)


As an interesting thought workout (for those that like such)

Is the Drow (secret) Spy that is working with the Heroes (while doing his "Job" away from the party in Downtime) still Evil?

Yeah, the easy answer/s is TN/CN but how would you justify being something else?
Examples for combinations:
LG, CG, NG, NE, CE, and LE.

I actually do have a dmPC (Kobold pretending to be a Halfling*) doing this, so kinda know my answer/s.....

*Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location plus a Hat of Disguise, and Expertise in Deception. Does speak Halfling.

[GlenSmash!]

I'm not a good enough Debate-ist (especially through text) to go too deep into the Shades of Grey (perspective) "Where's the Line, and how close can I get?" (On any Side: Law vs Chaos, Good vs Evil, and combinations) argument.

I find that doing so at the Table, just burns the entire gaming session, and everyone (except maybe the one making Alignment exception arguments) walks away unhappy.

Of course, that's why I previously said this:


I actually love 5E's alignment changes.

Now it's two sentences to help guide roleplaying. Becoming descriptive rather than prescriptive. So that personal definition above is just foe me. I don't think it needs to apply to anyone else.

However the OP asked "What is EVIL?" not "How do I so evil in 5e?" to answer the latter question I think Tanarii nailed it.

A player reads the 2 sentences for your alignment, and decides how they influence the roleplay of their character.

It's simple, streamlined, and useful.

The greater conversation may influence the type of character you want to play and is interesting enough to discuss on an internet forum on a slow day at work, but it's not worth an iota of time at the table IMHO.

[Great Dragon]

A player reads the 2 sentences for your alignment, and decides how they influence the roleplay of their character.

It's simple, streamlined, and useful.

The greater conversation may influence the type of character you want to play and is interesting enough to discuss on an internet forum on a slow day at work, but it's not worth an iota of time at the table IMHO.

Thanks for the reminder.
my Excuse is that I'm stuck on my phone the majority of the time.
Which means that I might not have the time (while riding the bus/etc) to go through and check older posts for comments similar to my own. I'm using my Tablet as much as possible now.

I really do like the fact that 5e did do the above, making it where the player can read the Ideals (and Traits, Bonds, and Flaws) for various Backgrounds, and choose what they think applies to their PC, one for L/C and one for G/E, making some interesting definitions.
Might have at least reduced some of the Flame Wars (and verbal Hazing) of Yesteryears. Ruined the Game for a lot of people.
3e/x was a little better, but 5e hit the nail. :nale: (LoL)

For those interested: here is where I put my response to Unneeded Homework (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?591816-Are-you-creative) post #36.

[Naanomi]

Do remember that there are still mechanical effects tied to alignment, if relatively rare ones and (if desired) easily removable if you don’t like them through houserules

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516989-When-Alignment-Matters-Mechanically

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/8eva7s/collaborative_list_of_every_mechanical_effect_of/

[Great Dragon]

Do remember that there are still mechanical effects tied to alignment, if relatively rare ones and (if desired) easily removable if you don’t like them through houserules

I'll most likely be trying to remember where to find the link for that information. (Here!)

I think that it's neat that there are still ways to use Alignment mechanically in the Game, without punishing PCs for being that Alignment, like 3x did. Where you could have a Weapon that only hurt Lawful (sometimes combined with Good/Evil) people/beings, and Maybe did subdual for everything else.
Where the DM (or mean Players) could specifically build an Assassin that did up to an extra 4d6 damage (plus Sneak Attack) against your LG (required) Paladin.

Now, Radiant/Necrotic does damage to everyone equally. Not very many Creatures Resistant/Immune to either type.