Can an evil character still feel remorse?

[Conradine]

I was thinking...
doing evil is a thing, being evil is another.

If someone feels remorse for his actions, can he be of Evil alignment?
Or evil is defined by this, the lack of remorse?

[Sutr]

Yes feeling bad about burning the village doesn't stop it from being evil especially since there is another village tommorow.

The joker batman is certainly evil, but the senator who profits off of military industry used in crime fighting in Gotham can certainly feel for those people, he is certainly evil if he cares about money/power more.

[hamishspence]

I was thinking...
doing evil is a thing, being evil is another.


A person who has a behavioural pattern of doing evil, is evil, in D&D. Regardless of other factors like how they feel about their own deeds.

[Gnaeus]

Look at Lord Soth. Clearly evil. Consumed with remorse for past actions. His willingness to murder civilians doesn’t change his regret for causing the death of his love and incidentally the Cataclysm.

[Mordante]

That is my main gripe with DnD, the focus on good, neutral, evil etc.

Most alignments of my characters are like: not evil, mostly good, anti authoritarian but general good, etc.

Just play the character as you want to play it. You can even play a lawful good guy with no remorse. (burning a whole town of heretics without losing sleep)

[Mordaedil]

Again someone struggling with the wording that alignments aren't a straight-jacket.

Why do people keep misunderstanding what this means? Even the comic on this very website quite elaborately illustrates how alignments are working when Roy goes to heaven.

Player characters or even non-player characters aren't an embodiment of alignment and everything that means. There is variance, there is interplay and there is drama in the lines between each.

When you chose the evil alignment in D&D that does not mean you are a baby-eating monstrosity who has had all your humanity ripped from your very bones. It means you have commited yourself to certain degree of selfishness that is contrary to what is considered good. It means you have made calls, judgements or decisions that ultimately aren't very good at a cosmic level. This does not mean you are a psychopath unable to feel empathy or sympathy on any level, only that for a few scant moments those feelings were subdued or inferior to some other emotion that resides in the human psyche. Pride, patriotism, revenge, bigotry, superiority, racism/specism all can contribute in the flow south for a few scant moments and as long as the character refuses to acknowledge these as faulty and directly make up for them, they will taint him in the label of evil.

So to answer the question, can an evil character feel remorse: Depends on what it matters to him and what makes him evil.

[hamishspence]

Just play the character as you want to play it. You can even play a lawful good guy with no remorse. (burning a whole town of heretics without losing sleep)

There's many right and wrong ways to play good - and burning whole towns for "heresy" is one of the wrong ways.

[Conradine]

I meant genuine remorse. The "I wish I could take it back" kind of remorse that keep people awake at night.

[DeTess]

I meant genuine remorse. The "I wish I could take it back" kind of remorse that keep people awake at night.

Depends, does the character, despite the remorse, continue doing evil, or do they stop doing their evil deeds and try to make up for it? If, despite the remorse, it's still business as usual for them then they're still evil. If they act on the remorse then they might eventually move north on the alignment scale.

[MeimuHakurei]

Not a full example since the character very much comes around towards Good in the end, but Asgore Dreemurr actually fits this. He's grieving about the humans he has to kill and tries to distance himself from the deed as much as possible. But despite that, he insists on going through with the plan to the very end, refusing any mercy (and looking at) the human who made it all the way to him. He really only continued his evil actions because he has no other idea what to do.

[Celestia]

A great example of this is Lelouche vi Britannia. He is very much a "the ends justify the means" kinda guy and throughout the series, he does some truly awful, horrible things. I mean, the war crimes he commits...{Scrubbed}. Yet, he also feels genuine remorse and regret for it and even has complete emotional breakdowns multiple times over the course of the show. He is absolutely evil by any definition of the word, but he also absolutely does not enjoy being evil and only does what he does because he seriously believes it's the only way.

[liquidformat]

I was thinking...
doing evil is a thing, being evil is another.

If someone feels remorse for his actions, can he be of Evil alignment?
Or evil is defined by this, the lack of remorse?

If we are talking an evil outsider who is the embodiment of evil such as a devil or demon as defined by 3.5 then no they have no remorse and are incapable of having it.

If we are talking some random evil character then yes, being evil doesn't rid you of emotions. If anything it is a characterization of your actions not of what you are thinking. There are plenty of evil character that have good intentions and regret how a certain incident was handled that doesn't in and of itself change their alignment.


I meant genuine remorse. The "I wish I could take it back" kind of remorse that keep people awake at night.

Let's go with an example, an Evil character does evil which causes the rise of another evil character that kills off his entire family as revenge. The first evil character feels great remorse and regret that for his actions that lead to the rise of second evil character who slaughtered his family and wishes he could go back and change his actions that lead to the rise of said evil character.

The first evil character feels genuine remorse and regrets his actions, he wishes he had simply just killed said evil character when he had the chance, snuffed him out before he was a threat. This regret he feels in no way changes his alignment, in fact it probably makes him even more evil and heartless in the future as he now has the mantra 'pull them out by the roots leave nothing that could come back to bite you in the future'.


Just play the character as you want to play it. You can even play a lawful good guy with no remorse. (burning a whole town of heretics without losing sleep)

Since when was killing people who don't share your beliefs a characteristic of 'lawful good'? This would hands down be a a Lawful Evil character...

[legomaster00156]

{Scrubbed}

[Burley]

If you create an evil character and describe, in detail, their evil actions, and then give them the moral imperative to feel regret, while still forcing them to do evil, because it's your story, does that make you evil?

Morality is hard on the internet. :smallsigh:

[Jowgen]

Yes, they can, but I think the more pertinent question is whether an evil creature incapable of remorse can be redeemed.

To which, by most relevant rule sets, the answer is no.

The FCII rules for avoiding damnation requires sincere apologies to those harmed, so unless the creature feels remorse it can't do that.

The BoED rules also require sincerity: "A character who has committed an evil act cannot simply obtain an atonement spell and carry on as if nothing had happened. She must first make amends for her actions, at least trying to repair any damage she caused and offering sincere apologies to those who might still hold resentment against her."

The CC rules mostly require only a series of repentive actions, but also conversion to another faith, which may not work if you aren't genuinely repentant of your past.

So by en large, feeling remorse doesn't preclude being evil, but its required to change from evil to good. As Celestia said: Lelouch is a great example.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

I was thinking...
doing evil is a thing, being evil is another.

If someone feels remorse for his actions, can he be of Evil alignment?
Or evil is defined by this, the lack of remorse?

Certainly Evil isn't defined by lack of remorse; that's Antisocial Personality Disorder (including it's most extreme and famous forms, sociopathy and psychopathy, defined by a complete absence of guilt). It's perfectly possible for even a sociopath/psychopath to be Good; just because you wouldn't feel guilty about doing something doesn't mean you have any intention of actually doing it. (Incidentally, many sociopaths/psychopaths actually have very elaborate moral systems they adhere to, but they tend to be very different from conventional morality.)

As for doing evil versus being evil, when exactly the change happens is far too fluid a thing to pin down, but it definitely involves deciding that the evil things you are doing/contemplating are acceptable. Decide that torturing others to harvest their souls as a power source is an acceptable plan? Doesn't matter how long it takes for you to get an opportunity to actually do it; you're evil now1. It doesn't matter how bad you feel about doing it2, you still decided to do it anyways of your own free will.


1: Barring the usual caveats about extenuating circumstances, though it would take a doozy of a circumstance to bring this particular example up to neutral. However, that would be the quality of the act changing, which kind of obviates the premise that deciding an evil act is acceptable makes you evil (YMMV on whether "Yes I harvested their souls, but it was only to cure the Orphan Plague!" is still evil, but I think we can all agree it's less evil than "And now that I've harvested those souls, I can begin my reign of terror and blood!", and therefore that a person who has decided to do the former is less evil than a person who has decided the latter).

2: Unless you actually act on that remorse and start atoning, but that just opens a whole can of worms as to whether being redeemable (even if you haven't made any progress down that road) is inherently less evil or not, so lets stick with "feeling bad but not acting constructively on that feeling".

[GrayDeath]

Talking D&D: In short, yes.

While it MIGHT make you change your ways to feel true, deep remorse, it doesnt HAVE to, so in and on itself it does not make your actions any less Evil (and going by the 2-dimensional Good/Evil of D&D thats enough to make you Evil if its more than once and sometimes even if its only once).

It will however most likely also make you a more sympathetic Evil Guy/Gal. ^^

[denthor]

Evil has remorseful moments.

This is why evil never sleeps. They get hammered by the subconscious.

[False God]

Sure, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and all the people killed by those good intentions.

You can feel bad about what you did, but still feel like you had to do it. An evil person is ultimately defined by their actions, not what's going on in their head. Evil people can still do good things, be kind people when they feel like it, they usually choose not to be.

[Conradine]

I asked because the evil NPC described in the Book of Vile Darkness are all unrepentant, totally. Ok, not a great example because they get short description, but I've still to find a conflicted villain - with evil alignment - described in a D&D module.

---

If you don't like the thread, please, just avoid joining the discussion. There's no point in joining it just to flame and cause it to get closed. Thanks.

[hamishspence]

Calais Archwinter in Exemplars of Evil is regularly "horrified by the results of her actions" at least.

[JeenLeen]

I asked because the evil NPC described in the Book of Vile Darkness are all unrepentant, totally. Ok, not a great example because they get short description, but I've still to find a conflicted villain - with evil alignment - described in a D&D module.

I could see a lot of modules avoiding that type of villain since it's hard to write one well and hard to GM one well. I'm trying to think through books I've read, and there's a scant few I can think of and most of them come off as kinda crazy instead of well-designed.

The 'best' type I could think of is somebody who thinks they are doing something evil for good purposes.
Oh-that does remind me. Not a great example, but one that was pretty well-done.

The game starts as you are recruited to an organization to stop some terrorist organization.

After you best them, you find out that your boss was behind all the bad stuff happening thus far. But he was doing it in order to give your team the foundations to fight the real Big Bad that was coming. Or something like that. I forget the details.


Another...

Taravagrian (sp).

And I guess...

It sounds like the Lord Ruler at least was remorseful at the start. By the time the books are set, he's cynical and resigned to being evil, but we get glimpses that he felt really sorry for it at first. But realized it was needed to contain the evil god.

In Girl Genius, Wulfenbach is this. He isn't so much remorseful as annoyed about the evil he has to do in maintaining his tyrannical empire -- he'd rather be having fun or doing science -- but he doesn't enjoy it and he does it in order to keep the peace.


I also got the feeling that the villain in the D&D game the players are playing in Yet Another Gaming Comic is probably one of these, but that comic died before we got to find out.

[False God]

I asked because the evil NPC described in the Book of Vile Darkness are all unrepentant, totally. Ok, not a great example because they get short description, but I've still to find a conflicted villain - with evil alignment - described in a D&D module.

D&D is rarely a game of depth. And a good number of people prefer things as shallow as possible. I find a number of people who want nothing more than Orcs as evil monsters that need to be killed on sight and slaughtering orc babies is no more morally questionable than killing invasive parasites or mass murderers.

Creating "deep" characters is difficult, and much of D&D leaves that up to the DM, to take a character and add depth to them, which is often why descriptions of characters, good and evil, will fall short.

Even outside of D&D, creating morally grey characters is hard. Creating conflicted characters is hard. Because you have to balance showing them willing to do enough evil to accomplish their goals, but still demonstrate their remorse in a tangible enough way that doesn't make it feel like a cheap "I'm sorry." Or "Oh look the bad guy suffers internally over his badness, which means he's really not so bad!" uh, no.

[RedMage125]

If you don't like the thread, please, just avoid joining the discussion. There's no point in joining it just to flame and cause it to get closed. Thanks.

Then maybe answer some of the further questions people have been asking you, instead of bemoaning that you're not getting the answer you expected.

You said this person is "showing genuine remorse".

Okay, so what? His remorse is meaningless to the matter of your OP unless you tell us what he does afterwards. Which you have ignored when asked that question.

Alignment stems from one's outlooks and actions (with intent considered). It does not dictate them.

So, as you have been asked...does his remorse lead him to try to make amends for what he did? Is he trying to be a better person than he was previously? Or is he wallowing in his own self-pity about how miserable he is for doing evil things, but continues to do them? If it's the former, then he may be on the path to becoming non-evil. If it's the latter, then he's still evil. But the point is that the remorse by itself doesn't mean squat with respect to his alignment, which you were told right away in the first few posts. Who cares how remorseful he is? What's he gonna do about it? THAT is the pertinent question.

[Psychoalpha]

I asked because the evil NPC described in the Book of Vile Darkness are all unrepentant, totally. Ok, not a great example because they get short description, but I've still to find a conflicted villain - with evil alignment - described in a D&D module.

I think your mistake on the first part is 'Book of Vile Darkness'. I'm pretty sure that much like the 'Good' described in Exalted Deeds, the 'Evil' described in Vile Darkness is supposed to be far above and beyond the pale of that usually experienced by most characters, PC or NPC.

Mortals aren't absolute representations of alignment, as plenty of folks have already mentioned. Anybody who tries to play their character as if they actually ARE an absolute paragon of X or Y alignment is Doing It Wrong(tm). Then again, given how frequently people seem to think about their characters in absolutes, it wouldn't surprise me if that were your experience. :p {Scrubbed}

[John05]

The responses I’m seeing suggest to me that most people take a deontological or consequentialist approach to normative ethics for DnD. As opposed to virtue ethics.

I.e. consistently behaving in an evil way or causing evil makes a person evil regardless of his or her character.

A hypothetical person who murders many people but feels awful about it and feels like he was forced... he may have just had low “moral luck”. Put into a bad position. As opposed to someone who is always doing good deeds but not out of any enjoyment of doing so but rather because of other restrictions such as law or practicality.

But DnD has always struck me as the opposite. E.g evil outsiders just register as Evil and often have that “subtype”. It doesn’t change just because they perform a lot of good actions. I.e. leaning towards virtue ethics.

This generally isn’t a problem for people because IME most people I’ve seen avoid dilemmas where we weigh the normative ethics against each other. So basically people who are “Good” in character, we assume will always act/behave in “Good” ways. However, in this discussion I’m not sure if that’s avoidable. And when it comes to this dilemma I’d still have assumed virtue ethics won out given how relatively static alignment feels in DnD.

[hamishspence]

E.g evil outsiders just register as Evil and often have that “subtype”. It doesn’t change just because they perform a lot of good actions.

The subtype doesn't change (not without magic rituals, at least) but their actual alignment can.

[John05]

The subtype doesn't change (not without magic rituals, at least) but their actual alignment can.

Yes I know. But subtype is derivative of the alignment system.

Anyway my point is that it’s a precedent / a case among many where people are basically stuck with what they’re given.

Many intelligent, thinking beings have extremely strong proclivities in their character. Many entire races are almost “always evil”. The very fact that the game system assigns alignment to people rather than actions or consequences ... well... res ipsa... Character wins over actions and consequences in the end, for me at least. (That doesn’t mean exemplars of Good like saints and paladins can get away with evil actions so long as they have “good intentions and character”. They’re exemplars and generally have additional codes of conduct too. Imo )

Basically what I’m saying is, given what i know and seen of various DnD editions, I’d be much more inclined to say that truly Evil people don’t feel remorse.

Someone who feels too much remorse for evil actions is very likely a non Evil person being forced into bad circumstances. I.e. he has low “moral luck”.

That isn’t to say I don’t believe Evil people can’t feel remorse. But being remorseful is something that would make someone have a less “Evil character” to me. That’s why the BoVD had mostly remorseless examples. It made sense to me. BoVD is the extreme example. They are exemplars of Evil, not just people who happen to be a bit evil.

[Particle_Man]

If a particular activity is both evil and to the agent addictive, I could see a cycle of remorse and moral weakness. The antagonist in the move ‘M’ might qualify.

[hamishspence]

The very fact that the game system assigns alignment to people rather than actions or consequences ... well... res ipsa... Character wins over actions and consequences in the end, for me at least.

The recommendations for "When to change a character's alignment" in DMG (and later, Champions of Ruin) place most importance on actions, not "character traits".

[dancrilis]

If someone feels remorse for his actions, can he be of Evil alignment?

Yes.

For example: Child accidental engages in a ritual to trap their soul in the custody of a devil - parent researches the devil and finds out that they stick to the letter and spirit of their deals (everything points to them being trustworthy), and the soul freedom requires that the parent sacrifice seven children born at the same day, hour and minute as the child.
The parent goes and hunts down hundreds of children and murders them via ritual (getting accurate birth time in a medieval setting with variable timezones is hard) - they are remorseful about all the innocent death, but they continue as their child is more important.
Eventually the ritual is complete (ten years later) and they are returned their child (unharmed in any way - morally, emotionally, physically, mentally etc - as per the spirit of the agreement).
The parent in this case might have started good, neutral or evil - but they are fairly evil (and remorseful) by the end of it.

Of course if they live a harm free life for the rest of their days they might end up neutral, and if they are a helpful in general they might end up good.

Alignment can be a fickle force.

[Doctor Awkward]

I meant genuine remorse. The "I wish I could take it back" kind of remorse that keep people awake at night.

Yes. See the Operative (https://firefly.fandom.com/wiki/Operative) in the Serenity film for further details. Self-identifies as evil and is clearly haunted by the actions he feels that he must take.

[Duke of Urrel]

Intelligent Evil creatures may feel remorse, but they don't act upon it. If they act upon it, they risk becoming less Evil.

[ezekielraiden]

The responses I’m seeing suggest to me that most people take a deontological or consequentialist approach to normative ethics for DnD. As opposed to virtue ethics.

I.e. consistently behaving in an evil way or causing evil makes a person evil regardless of his or her character.

A hypothetical person who murders many people but feels awful about it and feels like he was forced... he may have just had low “moral luck”. Put into a bad position. As opposed to someone who is always doing good deeds but not out of any enjoyment of doing so but rather because of other restrictions such as law or practicality.

But DnD has always struck me as the opposite. E.g evil outsiders just register as Evil and often have that “subtype”. It doesn’t change just because they perform a lot of good actions. I.e. leaning towards virtue ethics.

This generally isn’t a problem for people because IME most people I’ve seen avoid dilemmas where we weigh the normative ethics against each other. So basically people who are “Good” in character, we assume will always act/behave in “Good” ways. However, in this discussion I’m not sure if that’s avoidable. And when it comes to this dilemma I’d still have assumed virtue ethics won out given how relatively static alignment feels in DnD.

IME, people chafe pretty heavily on essentialist conceptions of alignment.

Also, virtue ethics isn't about essential nature. Aristotle was extremely clear that virtues are practiced habits and induced through education, not innate characteristics that some people have and other people lack. Concern over moral luck and the need for, but lack of guaranteed access to, sound moral education was a significant concern to him even while he was alive, and is a commonly used criticism of neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics theories (e.g. Philippa Foot). Note that I say this as someone who massively favors virtue ethics! None of the main normative ethical theories (consequentialism, deontology, or virtue) can meaningfully account for beings with an essentially evil nature, mostly because they all have as a goal helping ignorant but well-meaning actors learn how to behave morally. A normative theory that just says "you just do evil things because you're made of the wrong stuff" would be fantastically useless as a normative theory (unless arbitrary punishment of specific groups is desirable, which it has been in some societies, e.g. {Scrubbed}).

As for the OP:
I think a genuinely evil person can feel regret, and *try* or *want* to feel genuine remorse, but fail to actually do so in practice as long as they remain evil. I'm of the opinion that remorse is one of the vital components of repentance. That is, genuine remorse is in fact the acted-upon desire to repent, to make restitution for a wrong committed. It is not the feeling or awareness of having committed a wrong (that is guilt), nor is it the desire to avoid others' awareneness/judgment (that is shame), nor is it the desire that things had been or could be different (that is regret). An evil person can, and realistic evil people often will, feel any/all of guilt, shame, and regret at least some of the time.

But remorse is more complicated, for me. I see genuine remorse, as opposed to feigned or self-deluded remorse, as the first step on the road to repentance: it's not just that you feel badly about having done wrong, it's that you no longer accept that that wrong was justifiable, acceptable, etc. If you truly believe that, you *have* to start acting in such a way that repudiates the wrong deed(s) and moves toward restitution: hence, truly serious remorse is the moment when the quest for repentance has begun.

That doesn't mean Evil people do not or cannot feel genuine remorse exactly...but it does mean that if you do feel genuine remorse, you are trying to stop being Evil and *do* something about your past deeds. You may fail, feeling remorse is not contingent on future success. But I do believe it is contingent on present *genuine* desire, displayed through action, to address and make up for past wrong deeds and avoid future wrong deeds.

Another way of saying this: when someone says "I'm sorry" about an action they've performed, sometimes I don't believe them, because genuine apology (a verbal expression of remorse) should be accompanied by at least *effort* to stop doing the thing you've apologized for. And if you keep doing it repeatedly without any show of effort to stop? You really aren't that sorry.

Edit: Digging into the synonym breakdown at Dictionary.com for the word "regret" (which I was pointed to from the word "remorse), I feel pretty vindicated about this perspective, both in the text there, and in the antonyms listed for "regret" vs. "remorse" in Thesaurus.com:

SYNONYMS FOR remorse
1 contrition. See regret.

SYNONYMS FOR regret
1 deplore, lament, bewail, bemoan, mourn, sorrow, grieve. Rᴇɢʀᴇᴛ, ᴘᴇɴɪᴛᴇɴᴄᴇ, ʀᴇᴍᴏʀsᴇ imply a sense of sorrow about events in the past, usually wrongs committed or errors made. Rᴇɢʀᴇᴛ is distress of mind, sorrow for what has been done or failed to be done: to have no regrets. Pᴇɴɪᴛᴇɴᴄᴇ implies a sense of sin or misdoing, a feeling of contrition and determination not to sin again: a humble sense of penitence. Rᴇᴍᴏʀsᴇ implies pangs, qualms of conscience, a sense of guilt, regret, and repentance for sins committed, wrongs done, or duty not performed: a deep sense of remorse.

And then from Thesaurus.com, the antonyms of the two words overlap a fair amount (mostly about joy/happiness/satisfaction), but "regret" includes antonyms like ignorance and negligence, whereas "remorse" only approaches those with the antonym indifference, while including two that are a clearly different concept: meanness and mercilessness. To lack regret does not connote lacking mercy or being mean, but to lack remorse does. That seems a noteworthy distinction between the two.

[Necroticplague]

I was thinking...
doing evil is a thing, being evil is another.
No, they aren't. They're one and the same thing. That's literally the definition of being evil: doing evil with frequency.

If someone feels remorse for his actions, can he be of Evil alignment?
Or evil is defined by this, the lack of remorse?
Yes, he can be. No amount of guilt can cleanse oceans of blood. The person whose conscience weighs on them with what they 'must do' "for the greater good" is still an horrible person. They're just one who isn't coping with that realization very well.

They might be somewhat more capable of being saved then the remorseless, but they're both going to the same Infernal pit if that doesn't happen.

[Raven777]

I was thinking...
doing evil is a thing, being evil is another.

If someone feels remorse for his actions, can he be of Evil alignment?
Or evil is defined by this, the lack of remorse?

Evil people are still people. Unless you are dealing with full on psychopaths and sociopaths, they're not emotionally dead. Think about the idiom "even evil has standards". Well, it happens sometimes these standards can be crossed by accident, say in a fit of rage. Or in hindsight. Or if a loved one finds out. Then, there can be remorse.

Now, feeling remorse and acting upon these remorse are a different thing. That's where the difference happens, I believe: while Good is absolutely likely to act and atone or attempt remedy for its sins, Evil is very likely to let them bottle up and simmer inside until they become twisted in just one more reason to be angry at the world.

But not always! Once again, Evil people are still people, who may very well attempt apology and reconciliation with, say, the love of their life or a trusted long time ally. Such behavior is not necessarily Good by the way. It is, in fact, fairly Neutral, human behavior. Altruism, making the other feel better, is not the only motivation there can be. There is also emotional self interest in gaining back the trust, respect or love of someone. And there is the very real practical interest in earning back the aid of someone useful, be it for one's grand plans or one's trivial daily routine.

So yeah, Evil can definitely feel remorse, and even apologize. Their inner monologue for their reasons to do so is just gonna be different from Good.

[Conradine]

They might be somewhat more capable of being saved then the remorseless, but they're both going to the same Infernal pit if that doesn't happen.

That's another thing to discuss.
According to Fiendish Codex 2, souls who genuinely repent of their misdeed at the death's door come back as hellbreed, while those who repent a second after death end up on Dis, separated from other petitioners and not tortured directly - but instead anguishing over their actions.

So it seems D&D, or at least FC2, places some value upon remorse. Although is hard to define "how much".

[hamishspence]

So it seems D&D, or at least FC2, places some value upon remorse. Although is hard to define "how much".

Repentance is one step beyond remorse. Remorse is "feeling guilty". Repentance is "seeking to make restitution".

[ezekielraiden]

Repentance is one step beyond remorse. Remorse is "feeling guilty". Repentance is "seeking to make restitution".

See above--it actually seems that regret means "feeling guilty" (or at least feeling bad). "Remorse" is clearly defined as including a search for restitution: "Rᴇᴍᴏʀsᴇ implies...a sense of guilt, regret, and repentance for sins committed, wrongs done, or duty not performed."

[LordBlades]

For me, one of the more interesting ways to play Evil is exactly that: a remorseful 'hero', who deeply abhors what he is doing, but also deeply convinced it needs to be done for the 'greater good', so he sacrifices himself and his own peace of mind so nobody else has to.

[magic9mushroom]

I think one thing that's been missed here is that Evil characters are entirely capable of having their own moral code and feeling bad when they break it.

I mean, let's take as an example some elven racist. He doesn't care how many humans, dwarves, orcs or halflings he butchers or oppresses, because they're subelven trash fit only for slavery. But when he has a falling-out with one of his elf friends, they come to blows, and he kills his friend in a rage, that haunts him for years and he's always super-careful to avoid it in future.

Does he feel genuine remorse, and act on it? Yes. Is he capital-E Evil? Yes, because there's a whole pile of other stuff that he doesn't feel remorse about.

Thinking you're doing the right thing and having ethics doesn't automatically immunise you against being labelled Evil. History is littered with madmen and butchers who honestly believed the twisted worldviews they promoted - if your definition of Evil doesn't cover them, there's probably something wrong with it.

[ezekielraiden]

I think one thing that's been missed here is that Evil characters are entirely capable of having their own moral code and feeling bad when they break it.

I mean, let's take as an example some elven racist. He doesn't care how many humans, dwarves, orcs or halflings he butchers or oppresses, because they're subelven trash fit only for slavery. But when he has a falling-out with one of his elf friends, they come to blows, and he kills his friend in a rage, that haunts him for years and he's always super-careful to avoid it in future.

Does he feel genuine remorse, and act on it? Yes. Is he capital-E Evil? Yes, because there's a whole pile of other stuff that he doesn't feel remorse about.

Thinking you're doing the right thing and having ethics doesn't automatically immunise you against being labelled Evil. History is littered with madmen and butchers who honestly believed the twisted worldviews they promoted - if your definition of Evil doesn't cover them, there's probably something wrong with it.

I guess. This strikes me as not particularly genuine remorse because it radically misses the point. It's self-deluded, even if the thing uber-racist-elf feels remorse for *is* something they should feel it for, because their ethical reasoning is broken.

It's like saying that extremely erroneous math, which still produces the correct result by accident, is still in any meaningful sense "correct." It's not. E.g. cancelling the 6s in "64/16" to get that the result is 4/1. 64/16 IS 4/1, but cancelling a common digit in each number is completely invalid math that just happens to produce the right number in this special case (and a handful of others, whereas it would be dead wrong for 27/32 or the like). The super-racist-elf does feel bad and does want to make up for a wrong they performed, but it's not genuine remorse because their moral reasoning is so deeply screwed up that they can't see the real reasons why they're evil and need to change. They have reasoned on a faulty basis, so their "remorse" is equally faulty. Like how we find fault with a bigot who apologizes to a member of their targeted group by saying "I'm sorry, I was wrong abouy you, you really are a credit to your [group.]" They may genuinely wish to apologize, mend fences, etc. But their error of moral reasoning taints the effort, revealing they have not actually learned anything.

(And yes, I'm asserting non-relative values here. It's D&D. Regardless of whether you think IRL morality is objective, D&D morality explicitly is.)

[Bartmanhomer]

The evil character can feel remorse even the most horrific act. Depending on the character if they want to redeem themselves which may shift their alignment to neutral then good.

[LordBlades]

I guess. This strikes me as not particularly genuine remorse because it radically misses the point. It's self-deluded, even if the thing uber-racist-elf feels remorse for *is* something they should feel it for, because their ethical reasoning is broken.

It's like saying that extremely erroneous math, which still produces the correct result by accident, is still in any meaningful sense "correct." It's not. E.g. cancelling the 6s in "64/16" to get that the result is 4/1. 64/16 IS 4/1, but cancelling a common digit in each number is completely invalid math that just happens to produce the right number in this special case (and a handful of others, whereas it would be dead wrong for 27/32 or the like). The super-racist-elf does feel bad and does want to make up for a wrong they performed, but it's not genuine remorse because their moral reasoning is so deeply screwed up that they can't see the real reasons why they're evil and need to change. They have reasoned on a faulty basis, so their "remorse" is equally faulty. Like how we find fault with a bigot who apologizes to a member of their targeted group by saying "I'm sorry, I was wrong abouy you, you really are a credit to your [group.]" They may genuinely wish to apologize, mend fences, etc. But their error of moral reasoning taints the effort, revealing they have not actually learned anything.

(And yes, I'm asserting non-relative values here. It's D&D. Regardless of whether you think IRL morality is objective, D&D morality explicitly is.)

Their ethical reasoning might not be broken at all, but simply not extend far enough. A Good person (in the D&D objective sense) would feel remorse for the suffering (s)he has caused to anyone, of any race. An Evil racist (in the D&D objective sense) would feel remorse only for the suffering (s)he has caused to some races. Their reasons might be equally genuine (something along the lines of 'these are good and innocent people I have hurt'), but the Evil person's definition of 'good and innocent simply stops far earlier than the Good person's.

Think of it like Newtonian vs. Relativistic Mechanics. For a certain range of data, they both produce equally valid results, and the underlying principles are equally sound. However, once you go past that range of data (as you start discussing speeds around the same order of magnitude as the speed of light), one stops working.

[Peat]

+1ing everyone saying that an evil character might be completely, totally remorseful over some of their actions while not giving a moment's thought to something else. That's just how people work and if there's anything in the rules saying otherwise in the D&Dverse, I've not seen it.

Hell, they might be remorseful over the majority of their deeds but just keep doing it, although that feels pretty rare. But the above isn't.

[Necroticplague]

(And yes, I'm asserting non-relative values here. It's D&D. Regardless of whether you think IRL morality is objective, D&D morality explicitly is.)

Wait, when did morality ever play into this discussion? I thought we were talking about DnD alignment, not DnD morality. Those are two differing subjects.

[Bartmanhomer]

Wait, when did morality ever play into this discussion? I thought we were talking about DnD alignment, not DnD morality. Those are two different subjects.

To be really fair on this discussion, morality does play the part in alignment.

[Asmotherion]

"i don't want to commit a genoside but if i don't they will spread"
"They don't believe in my deity thus i'll bring them salvation. Unfortunatelly they have to die to repend for their sinful ways"
"Sorry that i hit you... i couldn't control myself in my rage. i really love you don't leave me"

Do you belive that evil people see themselves as Evil?

Most atrocities are done in the name of good. Most will try to justify their actions as "they had no other way".

Only sociopaths and mentally disturbed people don't feel remorse when they do something despicaple. And evil sociopaths (not all of them are) are responcible for a very small percentage of the evil commited in the world.

[Necroticplague]

To be really fair on this discussion, morality does play the part in alignment.

Not really. At best, they might happen to correlate by hilarious coincidence.

[Aniikinis]

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer: Yes, but for selfish reasons. If they break their code of ethics, hurt a loved one, go further than they wanted or ever needed to, or any number of things, yes. It all comes down to the character. Not every evil character is a psychopath or sociopath. Not every evil character is a baby-eating monster. Not every evil character is a horrific beast that needs to be put down by a paladin.

They can just as easily be the bartender that waters down his ale and still charges full price. The tax man that charges a little extra and keeps that bit for himself. The rebel taking down a ruthless dictatorship, and allowing the resulting "good system" to descend into slaughter as the people chafe against his rule. The necromancer that raises the dead for their families to have their last good bye and charges exorbitant prices to do so on poor families to wrap them in servitude for his own pleasure. The man seeking to rid the world of the evils he sees around him and calling for the wholesale removal of certain things from the life of his subjects and allies against their want. The beggar who acts as a lookout for the mob to get a few scraps here and there. The loner who cannot fit in with the crowd, and through his attempts at doing so accidentally make himself a pariah by harming the group as a whole.

As is so often said: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Good actions can have unintended consequences that lead to bad designs or bad ends. I can list a thousand from history, but many are against the forums rules so you can do the digging yourself. Not all evil is done with the intent to be evil, the vast majority is done in service of "good". We're not all heartless, in fact a good amount of us are too emotional for our own good, but we can feel remorse and regret. Especially if the action comes back to bite us where the sun don't shine.

[Berenger]

I think feeling remorse has less to do with good and evil and more with law and chaos. My theory is that lawful people regret things more often because a) critical contemplation of one's past actions isn't a particularly chaotic trait and b) when faced with a choice of gut instinct and "what feels right?" vs. duty and "what is expected of me?", lawful people generally choose the latter.

[OGDojo]

That is my main gripe with DnD, the focus on good, neutral, evil etc.

Most alignments of my characters are like: not evil, mostly good, anti authoritarian but general good, etc.

Just play the character as you want to play it. You can even play a lawful good guy with no remorse. (burning a whole town of heretics without losing sleep)

burning a whole village down without losing sleep even if it is hererics is still evil.... conversion first then violence but you will always feel remorse for having to kill them and wasting life in that way. thats more "Lawful Evil" because my God commands it i will kill all these people and i wont feel bad cuz its what my God told me to do...

Evil people can feel Remorse but its generally not for people. its more for a plan going wrong or something that he was working on that someone else ruined. its very hard to explain but from what i can tell.

Yes evil people can FEEL remorse... but the way they handle that grief is in EVIL ways such as killing the thing that caused him that grief or burning the home of the person that caused that grief

[Bartmanhomer]

Not really. At best, they might happen to correlate by hilarious coincidence.

Explain yourself please. :smile:

[Necroticplague]

Explain yourself please. :smile:
How so? I'm not sure what there is to explain. A physical force cannot create or rationally be used to derive morality. That would be like saying flying is immoral because it goes against gravity.

[ezekielraiden]

How so? I'm not sure what there is to explain. A physical force cannot create or rationally be used to derive morality. That would be like saying flying is immoral because it goes against gravity.

Unless one happens to be one of those totally unhinged weirdos who believe that a being of literal pure Good-ness exists. It's such a good thing literal billions of people on this planet don't hold such alien thoughts, we'd be in real trouble wouldn't we? Thank goodness nobody ever proposed anything like "moral realism," a term I totally just invented for the utterly bizarre concept that moral value is a real feature of existence and not simply something found inside ape thinkmeats.

More seriously: moral realism and many religious belief systems ({Scrubbed}, which are collectively the belief system of around 56% of the human race) literally do posit the idea of beings whose physical/natural properties include Good-ness. The answer to the {Scrubbed} dilemma is quite simple: the question "should I worship God, or goodness itself?" is no more meaningful than "should I praise the writing of Mark Twain, or the writing of Samuel Clemens?" That is, just as Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens are simply different names for the same individual (distinct signs/symbols that have identical referents), and thus each and every thing written by the one is something written by the other, one can assert that to worship God *is* to worship Good-ness etc. This line of reasoning goes back to the Scholastics at least, if not further.

So yeah. We're already talking about a universe where a whole bunch of impossible things in our world (like perpetual motion machines) are possible. And we already have billions of humans worldwide who, whether they have carefully articulated it or not, implicitly believe in a literal force of Good-ness. It really isn't that much of a leap to having D&D stuff that does/is the , but much more interventionist.

[AnimeTheCat]

Isn't this literally Thanos?
Evil guy (kills half the universe because reasons), but is remorseful that so many "have" to die and even more so that he "must" kill his most beloved child to do it?

[Aniikinis]

Isn't this literally Thanos?
Evil guy (kills half the universe because reasons), but is remorseful that so many "have" to die and even more so that he "must" kill his most beloved child to do it?

Movie Thanos, yes. In the comics he was obsessed and in love with death and wanted to have her as his bride. He thought that by killing half of existence he would be able to get with her. In the end, it turned out she only had eyes for deadpool and everything was for naught.

[NNescio]

Movie Thanos, yes. In the comics he was obsessed and in love with death and wanted to have her as his bride. He thought that by killing half of existence he would be able to get with her. In the end, it turned out she only had eyes for deadpool and everything was for naught.

So Thanos is a... yandere?

[ZamielVanWeber]

So Thanos is a... yandere?

In the comics life in the universe had exploded to the point where the living now outnumbered all who ever died. Death felt that this was a critical imbalance in the universe and resurrected Thanos to kill half the universe to put it right. When Mephisto was advising Thanos he pointed out that Death was likely ignoring Thanos because he tricked her into to letting him at the Infinity Gems under the guise of needing them for his task and never even completed said task, a situation which Thanos casually rectified with a needlessly dramatic snap.

[ezekielraiden]

The great irony is that neither Thanos has even the slightest lick of sense. Populations bounce back. The human population doubling time is something like 60 years. Many species double much, much faster (most bacteria, for instance) and vastly outnumber humans. (If the selection process were "50% of all *organisms,* randomly selected," humanity literally might not even notice--numerically we are a rounding error.) So, all Thanos has done is forestall the exact same problem by 60-120 years. It's not a fix. It doesn't balance anything. It fundamentally misunderstands the nature of population growth. It's stupid and I hate it.

Also, again, I really feel like people are conflating regret/guilt and proper remorse. Genuine remorse should come with a genuine desire to repent, and the only way to *demonstrate* a genuine desire to repent is to act on it, to make an effort to not just prevent making the error again, but to offer restitution and contrition for wrongs already committed. I totally grant that an evil character can feel guilt about their actions ("it's horrible...but I did what I had to do") or feel regret about them ("I wish...things could have been different"), but the critical difference with remorse is that it doesn't just admit having been wrong, it admits the true lack of justification, accepts that lack, and therefore acts in accordance with that belief. Like faith, remorse without works is dead. It cannot be genuine remorse unless you try to make up for your error. You can fail. Many truly remorseful super-evil characters will. But unless you try, the remorse isn't genuine...and *if* you try, you've started on the road away from evil.

[Karl Aegis]

Yes. They account for all the Evil characters in the Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia that are not being actively hunted by Archons, Angels or other Outsiders. The non-remorseful ones tend to be... wasting their time doing stupid things.

[jdizzlean]

The Mod Life Crisis: Please refrain from posting about real world politics and religion on these boards. Keep the discussion totally in the fantasy realm.

[rel]

I was thinking...
doing evil is a thing, being evil is another.

If someone feels remorse for his actions, can he be of Evil alignment?
Or evil is defined by this, the lack of remorse?



I meant genuine remorse. The "I wish I could take it back" kind of remorse that keep people awake at night.


Evil alignment stems from doing evil repeatedly. A lack of remorse makes that process easier but it is not a requirement. You can have legitimate remorse for something you did and still do enough evil to get the evil alignment.

Any functional evil character will have limits. Feeling remorse if they cross said limits is reasonable.
Wanting to correct a mistake and going through with it is reasonable.
It makes the character LESS evil than they would otherwise be but you can be less evil and still be evil.

Example:

I'm playing an evil sorcerer. I come upon a village of Kender. I don't like Kender, I have a lot of spell slots and not a lot of witnesses. I burn the village to the ground.
As I dig through the ruins looking for loot I come across the corpse of a dog that got caught in the conflagration.
I like dogs and this one was a breed I fancy. I'm sad I didn't make sure that there wasn't anything important in that village before dropping the fireballs.
After much deliberation despondently walking through the ashes idly kicking tiny Kender skulls about I resolve to be more careful about friendly fire in future. I even burn some xp and drop a limited wish to bring the dog back to life. I'll drop it of with some people I know to look after.

The character was genuinely sad about the mistake. They even put some effort into making it right. The act was a good act, it was even done for good reasons.
The sorcerer is a bit less evil than they were before they found the dog.

Still evil though.
Totally evil.
'I just burnt a hundred innocents to death for the lol's and desecrated the bodies' evil.

[Yahzi Coyote]

That is my main gripe with DnD, the focus on good, neutral, evil etc.
The focus on alignments is important, because it reflects the larger political structure of the D&D world. You have Team Evil and Team Good, and each of them has sub-teams. This allows for politics and intrigue at the highest levels.

I have a system to make the alignments line up with moral reasoning that is easier for players to relate to and DMs to adjudicate, although it only has six alignments. What it does is accept that everyone has the same understanding of morality (i.e. keep your word, protect your friends, etc.). Players already know how to role-play this. What changes is who you think morality should apply to:

NG: Everyone is entitled to moral treatment.
LG: Everyone who agrees to obey the rules is protected by the rules.
CG: Your family or peer group (which could be as large as a nation) deserve moral behavior from you.
LE: People who can make you a profit deserve respect.
CE: People who scare you deserve respect.
NE: No one deserves moral treatment (not even yourself!).

It works pretty well at my table. Also, for the most part only paladins and clerics really care that much.

[Necroticplague]

So yeah. We're already talking about a universe where a whole bunch of impossible things in our world (like perpetual motion machines) are possible. And we already have billions of humans worldwide who, whether they have carefully articulated it or not, implicitly believe in a literal force of Good-ness. It really isn't that much of a leap to having D&D stuff that does/is the , but much more interventionist.

Ignoring that such beliefs make morality a meaningless tautology (as do all morality systems unchained from consequences), it also doesn’t appear to be the case, because of how clearly immoral traits have been assigned to Good, such as racism, while moral traits like acceptance are ascribed to Evil (SS, p.30).

Thus, the cosmic Good (big g) isn’t necessarily the moral good (little g), and likewise with Evil and evil.

[Conradine]

I'll give my two cent...

normally I would say "sure, why not? Being a malevolent, egoistical, even sadistical person do not means necessarily being a Complete Monster".

But then, that quote from Vile Darkness:


"Evil” is a word that is probably overused. In the context of the game, and certainly of this book, the word should be reserved for the dark force of destruction and death that tempts souls to wrongdoing and perverts wholesomeness and purity at every turn. Evil is vile, corrupt, and irredeemably dark. It is not naughty, ill-tempered, or misunderstood. It is black-hearted, selfish, cruel, bloodthirsty and malevolent.

It sounds pretty extreme.
It sounds like being of Evil alignment isn't so common, after all. It's not a petty, temporary, grey thing. It's "serious business". So I asked myself " It is possible to go that far and still have normal, genuine emotions? That are not tainted by the corruption which, according to Vile Darkness, is so irredemably pervasive in an evil character?".

I think the answer is still "yes", but also "unlikely".

When I quote Fiendish Codex I often get the answer "being Evil and being damned are two separate things", but the book says they are not. The book says, explicitly, a soul is damned in the istant it becomes Evil, and it also says explicitly that Evil require action. Deliberate, heinous and - usually - repeated action.

It also makes a distinction between manslaughter and murder, and murder for pleasure - with the latter weighting far more on the karma balance - so there is room for intent and deliberation.

So I think when someone has gone far enough to deserve an Evil alignment, most of his thoughts and emotions are probably warped.

[DeTess]

Conradine, am I correct in understanding that you believe the definitions of 'good' and 'evil' within DnD 3.5 are completely divorced from real-life understanding of these concepts? IE: the only possible sources and ways to determine whether something is 'good' or 'evil' in DnD is by using definitions given in the books?

[Conradine]

Conradine, am I correct in understanding that you believe the definitions of 'good' and 'evil' within DnD 3.5 are completely divorced from real-life understanding of these concepts? IE: the only possible sources and ways to determine whether something is 'good' or 'evil' in DnD is by using definitions given in the books?


Errr....

yes.

The matter is, in real life there are no spells able to physically burn Evil or Good. There are no Good and Evil as tangible, flesh-burning forces. So yes, I think things are more reliably defined using the books ( and Dragon Magazine ).

[PoeticallyPsyco]

...and *if* you try, you've started on the road away from evil.

Well, hopefully. That which redeems, consumes (http://archives.sluggy.com/book.php?chapter=42#2004-07-07), and one man's holy war is another's genocide.

[hamishspence]

that quote from Vile Darkness:


Evil is vile, corrupt, and irredeemably dark.

It sounds pretty extreme.
It's describing the cosmic force of Evil, not "everybody with an Evil alignment". Otherwise all that stuff in BoED about how to redeem evil characters would be pointless.

[Alcore]

I meant genuine remorse. The "I wish I could take it back" kind of remorse that keep people awake at night.

Yes. Darth Vader is one such person. Comics often convey "I made a deal with the devil and it sucks" when Vader stars in the more deeper plotlines. Once he defeated Maul and Maul asked him what he could possibly hate that could be more powerful than his own hatred. Vader said one word; "myself"


That was why he was redeemable. He was but a mortal with Evil written in the alignment section.


As long as they don't carry the Evil subtype remorse for evil actions should be expected of a well rounded evil character even if the good heroes never know it.

[ezekielraiden]

Ignoring that such beliefs make morality a meaningless tautology (as do all morality systems unchained from consequences), it also doesn’t appear to be the case, because of how clearly immoral traits have been assigned to Good, such as racism, while moral traits like acceptance are ascribed to Evil (SS, p.30).

Thus, the cosmic Good (big g) isn’t necessarily the moral good (little g), and likewise with Evil and evil.

Who said anything about being unchained from consequence? I certainly did not, and I'd like to see the text that does. I'm not familiar with the "SS" abbreviation, what book is that?

[Efrate]

SS is Shining South iirc.

OP have you read red fel's guide to being LE. He covers stuff like this in pretty good detail.

Evil can love, have friends, allies, and every other emotion and normal thing good does. It just values something more. Be it money, family, friends, a cause, power, or themselves. It can and will hurt others to achieve what it wants. It will often enjoy hurting others to help it's goals along, but it can still feel bad about it on some level. It just values the ends more.

"I feel bad for burning that orphanage down, but nothing is more important than getting my lover back so I will do the devils bargain to get her resurrected."

[Necroticplague]

Who said anything about being unchained from consequence? I certainly did not, and I'd like to see the text that does. I'm not familiar with the "SS" abbreviation, what book is that?You spoke of deontological moralities, where things were good by their own definition. These cannot also be consequentialist systems, where morality is dictated by expected or actual outcomes.

The point that portion was making was that if something is good because of a mystic force’s fiat, it leaves the question “o.k, now I know what’s Good. Why should I do that instead of something else?”

Savage Species is what I used the SS for. Sorry, didn’t think that was ambiguous.

[Red Fel]

SS is Shining South iirc.

OP have you read red fel's guide to being LE. He covers stuff like this in pretty good detail.

Evil can love, have friends, allies, and every other emotion and normal thing good does. It just values something more. Be it money, family, friends, a cause, power, or themselves. It can and will hurt others to achieve what it wants. It will often enjoy hurting others to help it's goals along, but it can still feel bad about it on some level. It just values the ends more.

"I feel bad for burning that orphanage down, but nothing is more important than getting my lover back so I will do the devils bargain to get her resurrected."

Psst, it's three times. You're supposed to mention my name three times.

Ah, what the Hells, I'm here anyhow. And I think the above summary is accurate - my take on Evil is that it does and feels everything Good feels, but it focuses on end results.

So let's look at these head-scratchers, shall we?


I was thinking...
doing evil is a thing, being evil is another.

If someone feels remorse for his actions, can he be of Evil alignment?
Or evil is defined by this, the lack of remorse?

Yes. Someone who feels remorse can nonetheless be Evil.

In D&D, alignment is defined by actions taken, and the mindset behind them. The idea is that if you do Evil acts, whatever the reason, you are deep down the sort of person who willingly performs Evil acts - id est, Evil. Whatever your reasoning, whatever your self-justification, and whatever your after-the-fact self-flagellation, if you perform Evil acts, you are Evil.

The classic example is the person who does the worst possible things for the best possible reasons - the kind of man who becomes a monster to create a world in which monsters like him have no place. His actions, despite being those of a tortured, righteous man, are objectively Evil by D&D standards. He can mourn the loss of his innocence, steel himself against the fact that if he succeeds, his will be the last life he takes - but he's still Evil.


I meant genuine remorse. The "I wish I could take it back" kind of remorse that keep people awake at night.

Well, yes and no.

An Evil character can absolutely feel regret. He doesn't have to, but he can. An Evil character can absolutely wish she didn't have to do this. She doesn't have to, but she can.

But that Evil character would still do it. Would resent it, would rage against it, would regret it in the deepest pits of the heart, but wouldn't take it back. Because it had to be done.

That's the point. Evil justifies. Evil has some reason for everything it does - even if that reason is "because I wanted to" - and, absent some external force, isn't going to take it back unless it suits them to presently.


That's another thing to discuss.
According to Fiendish Codex 2, souls who genuinely repent of their misdeed at the death's door come back as hellbreed, while those who repent a second after death end up on Dis, separated from other petitioners and not tortured directly - but instead anguishing over their actions.

So it seems D&D, or at least FC2, places some value upon remorse. Although is hard to define "how much".

That's not just remorse. That's Repentance, with a capital R. It's all the elements of the Atonement spell minus the actual spell. It's not merely a desire to take it back, but a will to change - that is, the mindset of someone who is no longer Evil. That's the point.

By definition, if you truly repent in this way, you aren't Evil anymore. So that's a bit of a trick question - "Are you still Evil if you're no longer Evil?" Obviously not.

[ezekielraiden]

You spoke of deontological moralities, where things were good by their own definition. These cannot also be consequentialist systems, where morality is dictated by expected or actual outcomes.

The point that portion was making was that if something is good because of a mystic force’s fiat, it leaves the question “o.k, now I know what’s Good. Why should I do that instead of something else?”

Savage Species is what I used the SS for. Sorry, didn’t think that was ambiguous.

Firstly that's...not what deontological ethics is. Deontological ethics is not some utter whackjob's ravings. There is a very good reason why, even though certain forms of it from certain perspectives are seen by most as Seriously Flawed, we still *discuss* it as an alternative to consequentialist and virtue-ethics theories. Namely: if you can find even one unambiguous moral truth--even just one--you have an enormously strong position to argue from. Deontology argues that at least one such objective, mind-independent moral truth exists, that it can be discovered through rational thought in exactly the same way 2+2=4 can, and that from there we can construct a reliable and effective guide to behavior. The whole point of *not* being consequentialist was how difficult the consequence-determining question is: what scope should you set (both time and perspective), how accurate do your predictions need to be, do coincidences or happenstance still count, what consequences are worth pursuing (e.g. which utility function you use), etc. Deontology says that, with careful reasoning from true first principles, you can obviate the need for any of that--of course, it can be wrong, but so can extreme consequentialism. E.g. pure arithmetic hedonist utilitarianism says that if enslaving half the population, causing their happiness to drop by 90%, increases the happiness of the other half by 300%, you not only can but SHOULD do it if no option provides more net happiness.

The (fictional) city of Omelas provides another example: by having one child, just one true innocent, eternally suffer in terrible ways, an ancient covenant ensures that the city will be prosperous, crime-free, full of genuine intellectual and artistic wonders, etc. If even one of them were to show even a single moment of kindness to the child, Omelas would collapse, but each and every one of them must as part of their education be shown the child and know *exactly* why their city can prosper so. Of course, after, they justify: the happiness, security, safety, and flourishing of thousands, perhaps millions of inhabitants is worth knowingly profiting from the suffering of one single child. It would be *wrong* to take a happy, productive, pleasant life away from so many people just to help out a single child briefly. The consequences would be worse than the intent, even if it is tragic that the child must eternally suffer. If you disagree, you'll have to show how your disagreement doesn't fall back, in any way, on moral duty--because that's what "deontology" actually means, the theory of moral duty.

Any time someone talks about things being just plain wrong, full stop, they're being at least a little deontological. "Slavery is just wrong," for example, or (in your own case) "clearly immoral traits, such as racism." The only way a consequentialist can remain one and also assert that an action is simply wrong *always* is to account for every possible consequence it may have--but surely we can construct situations, no matter how contrived, where racism has positive consequences. Therefore, to assert *anything* as inherently, objectively, or universally immoral, one must assert that it is bad even if its consequences could somehow end up good. That we have some sort of duty not to perform that act.

Besides, I literally only used the word "deontology" (or any of its variations) once before you posted this. I did so *solely* to list the three main normative ethical theories (deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics, in a parenthetical exactly like this one). {Scrubbed}

As for the specifically D&D-related content of the above post:
{Scrubbed} We agree an elemental of fire is literally made of fire while being a sentient (or even sapient) being. This does not mean that any fire elemental, nor even a *god* of fire, gets to pick and choose at whim what is and isn't fire. A marilith is "made of Evil-ness (and Chaos)" in some way similar to the fire elemental being "made of fire." That doesn't mean it is fiat declaring what things are Evil (or Chaotic) any more than I get to declare what things are nutritious because I'm made of nutrients. Beings and energy made of Good-ness may simply have part of their physical nature aligned with what is, in truth, moral behavior; that does not even slightly mean that they subsequently *decide* moral behavior, and still less does it obviate the need for observation and reasoning to determine what the behavior is. Ideas like fallen angels and "fallen" (e.g. redeemed) devils/demons reflect this notion, that just because angels are made of Good-ness does not mean that they cannot, through action or intent, break that essential link and flip to being made of Evil-ness instead.

Also, while I intend to go look up the Savage Species citation later...you'll forgive me for not taking a rather *out there* supplement as though it accurately characterizes the entire line.

[Necroticplague]

Namely: if you can find even one unambiguous moral truth--even just one--you have an enormously strong position to argue from. Deontology argues that at least one such objective, mind-independent moral truth exists, that it can be discovered through rational thought in exactly the same way 2+2=4 can, and that from there we can construct a reliable and effective guide to behavior. Isn't this basically agreeing with my point that it such morality into mere tautology? 2+2=4 doesn’t express any concept in reality except that it’s own definitions are consistent. It’s a tautology that provides no new independent information than “Jeffrey, an unmarried man, is a bachelor”. 2+2=4 isn’t mind-independent because it only exists as a result of minds ascribing definitions to things. Mathematics is just a framework of internal rules that doesn’t inherently describe anything but itself. You can’t have a morality independent of a moral agent the same way you can’t have mathematics usefully describe something independent of empirical observation. You can’t define something into existence.

[Burley]

Non-jokey response:

I think that the capital-Q "Question" here isn't so much how the alignment system of D&D supports such a character in the original post. I think what's important is what you, as the DM or Player, think is most interesting to the narrative.

Do you want your wizard who is occasionally controlled by a demon, due to a Faustian covenant entered into during a youthful and foolish appetite for power, to feel remorse for their actions, past, present and future? Well, that's a complex character that's maybe not evil, but has done enough evil to be classified as such by, like, the Detect Evil spell.

Is a werewolf evil? I think most people, especially those being eaten by a werewolf, would think so. But, the woman trapped behind the eyes of a beast probably doesn't think so. She was gathering mushrooms to cook a birthday dinner for her young husband, tired from tending the herb farm, gathering reagents to sell to the local apothecary and traveling arcanists. Was it her fault that she was attacked by the beast? Is it her fault that she transforms during the full moon, breaks free from her bonds, and slaughters her husband, the local constable and three orphans? Is she evil? I don't think so. But, she took an extra +Cha+class level from that Paladin's smite when she was finally stopped.

Those characters are interesting and compelling and should be used in our games, because they add depth to the world and the other inhabitants of it. Evil may be a matter of perspective, and we should explore that in our games (because it's safer than exploring it in the real world).

[RedMage125]

*Stuff. Mostly about deontological ethics*
What you're missing is that 3.xe D&D most closely resembles Deontological ethics. Good and Evil (as well as Law and Chaos) are objective forces that shape the cosmos (PHB, Chapter 6, first paragraph). These forces can be observed, measured and quantified in an objective fashion (Detect line of spells). These forces can be manipulated to protect or harm others (Protection From X, Holy Smite/Unholy Blight, etc). There are environments (Outer Planes) where these energies are so omnipresent that they have effects on individuals there.

Now, if we look to the DMG (page 134) where it talks about changing alignments, that occurs when an individual character's behavior is more in keeping with an alignment other than his/her listed one, in a pattern of consistent behavior, over a period of time which shall be no less than one week of in-game time.

Furthermore, the books which give us treatises on how alignment work (BoVD, BoED), tell us that consequences are not what determine the alignment weight of an act, but rather action and intent (BoVD Chapter 2, under header of "Intent and Context"). The listed example has a Paladin named Zophas who tries to climb some rocks to escape some owlbears. He accidentally triggers a rockslide, which kills several innocent peasants in a hut below. If it is a genuine accident, it is not an Evil act. but if Zophas' friend points out the instability of the rocks and the hut below and Zophas climbs anyway...then it is an Evil act, because he willingly endangered those innocents and caused their deaths. He loses his Paladin powers. However, the same books also tell us that certain acts can be objectively Evil, regardless of context (Consorting With Fiends, Creation of Undead, etc).

This more closely models deontological ethics than consequentialist ones, although not perfectly. Because sometimes, consequences have a small factor (in so much as they create a framework of "Context" as the BoVD tells us). The BoVD tells us, for example, that the killing of a creature of "consumate, irredeemable evil", such as a fiend or a chromatic dragon, even for selfish reasons (thus meeting that same book's definition of "murder"), is not an Evil act. If you want to slaughter a Red Dragon just because you want the treasure it hoards, or kill a specific fiend just to exact vengeance for your family, it's not Evil. It won't be a Good act, since, you know...murder...but not evil if the being meets certain criteria. Contrariwise, a hero who sets out to slay that same dragon to save lives and prevent its rampage of slaughter has committed a Good act.

The contrast between deontological and consequentialist ethical ramifications is exactly why the standard Trolley problem proposed by Foot is utterly useless in a D&D framework. The Trolley Problem is not about a "moral dilemma", because there is no true "moral" answer. The Trolley Problem only highlights whether the person being asked it values Utlitarianism (or consequentialism, if you prefer) vis Personal Accountability (or deontological ethics). That is, whether they believe it is more important to save a net of 4 lives vis feeling personally responsible for the death of even one.

It's useless in D&D because by 3.xe D&D mores, the Evil Act was committed by the villain who tied all 6 people to the tracks in the first place. The PC at the lever has no actual agency to "murder" anyone. Even a 3.5e paladin at the switch would not fall for not pressing the switch, since they only fall for "intentionally committing an evil act", which we know requires Action, Intent, and Context. So if the paladin does nothing, he does not fall. And that's where it gets REAL screwy. Because, if the Paladin chooses not to throw the switch, has he placed his value of his own purity over the lives of 4 people? Isn't that selfishness? Contrariwise, if he was willing to risk falling by throwing the lever, because saving 4 lives is more important than him having Paladin powers, isn't that actually a very selfless act? Isn't he actually sacrificing his own power to save them? Like I said, it's all screwy, and moreso, because by the RAW, the Paladin has no agency to actually "murder" anyone in this scenario. I always maintain that the best and "most paladin-like" thing to do is throw his own armored body in front of the Trolley to stop it. That, or summon his Celestial Warhorse (a Clydesdale weighing about 2,000 pounds and likely wearing armor), to stop the trolley. Reject the dichotomy of choice, if you will.

OTOH, there are 2 variants to the Trolley Problem that are relevant to D&D alignment, and to Paladins. The Fat Man and Fat Villain variants.

In the Fat Man variant, the Paladin is on a bridge over the runaway trolley, which is speeding towards 5 people tied to the tracks. Also on the bridge is a grossly obese man. The fat man is a total innocent. If the paladin pushed this innocent fat man off the bridge onto the tracks in front of the trolley, his weight will be sufficient to arrest the momentum of the trolley before it hits the 5 people tied to the tracks. This is "killing an innocent" to save lives. Not the standard Trolley Problem. And it is an Evil act, because this Paladin still should have chosen to sacrifice himself and not killed someone else to avoid that. Saving lives is a Good Act. But Committing an Evil Act to achieve a Good End, even if you succeed, is still, by 3.5e mores, committing an Evil Act, followed by a Good Act.

The Fat Villain variant is very similar to above, but that obese man? He's the one who tied the 5 other people to the tracks, and the querent knows this. While this may still pose some ethical problems IRL, D&D is actually quite simple. A Paladin does not fall for pushing the Fat Villain in front of the Trolley. Much how it is not an evil act in D&D to defend yourself with lethal force when attacked with lethal force. Killing an evil person who is in the process of attempting to murder 5 people by throwing them into their own trap which also saves the 5 intended victims? Not evil. Period.

But that's because D&D has specific mores of "Evil" and "not Evil" that don't always line up with the real world, mostly to accomodate for fantasy adventuring (which is why deontological ethics don't perfectly model it either). In D&D, if you are attacked with lethal force and lethal intent, it is not evil to defend yourself with lethal means. If you are a level 10 Paladin, and a bunch of level 2 bandits attack you, doing their level best to murder you for your stuff, you are carte blanche to kill them where they stand. Obviously, the most Good thing to do in a situation where you obviously out-power such individuals would be to defeat them nonlethally, since they are not a true your life, but you're not obliged to spare the life of anyone trying to kill you.




As for the specifically D&D-related content of the above post:
{Scrubbed} We agree an elemental of fire is literally made of fire while being a sentient (or even sapient) being. This does not mean that any fire elemental, nor even a *god* of fire, gets to pick and choose at whim what is and isn't fire. A marilith is "made of Evil-ness (and Chaos)" in some way similar to the fire elemental being "made of fire." That doesn't mean it is fiat declaring what things are Evil (or Chaotic) any more than I get to declare what things are nutritious because I'm made of nutrients. Beings and energy made of Good-ness may simply have part of their physical nature aligned with what is, in truth, moral behavior; that does not even slightly mean that they subsequently *decide* moral behavior, and still less does it obviate the need for observation and reasoning to determine what the behavior is. Ideas like fallen angels and "fallen" (e.g. redeemed) devils/demons reflect this notion, that just because angels are made of Good-ness does not mean that they cannot, through action or intent, break that essential link and flip to being made of Evil-ness instead.


True, but such instances are meant to be rare or unique cases. The only reason even THOSE exceptions are permissible by the rules, is so DM can entertain classic tropes of fantasy, such as fallen angels or redeemed demons, and not feel like they are somehow "breaking the rules". Barring external forces acting on such a creature (like a Helm of Opposite Alignment), they will likely never deviate from the behavior of their nature to a significant enough degree.

I usually think of it this way: Except for the extremely rare or unique individual, Outsiders with alignment subtypes do not possess thr same level of free will that a mortal does. They are not Good/Evil/whatever because of what they choose to do, but rather because of what they are.

[hamishspence]

I usually think of it this way: Except for the extremely rare or unique individual, Outsiders with alignment subtypes do not possess thr same level of free will that a mortal does. They are not Good/Evil/whatever because of what they choose to do, but rather because of what they are.

Cambions from Expedition to the Demonweb Pits (demons with a little mortal ancestry) are a lot more flexible than "regular" demons- despite having the Chaotic and Evil subtypes, they're only Often CE (so, 50% or less). 10% are Not Any Kind of Evil.

So, alignment subtypes may not be quite as controlling as all that.

[RedMage125]

Cambions from Expedition to the Demonweb Pits (demons with a little mortal ancestry) are a lot more flexible than "regular" demons- despite having the Chaotic and Evil subtypes, they're only Often CE (so, 50% or less). 10% are Not Any Kind of Evil.

So, alignment subtypes may not be quite as controlling as all that.

I thought Cambion was another term for a Half-Fiend?

Which don't have subtypes.

[hamishspence]

I thought Cambion was another term for a Half-Fiend?


Demonweb Pits introduces a new kind of Cambion, which is a full demon, extraplanar, native to the Abyss, rather than a regular half-fiend. Unlike half-fiends, they're wingless. They also seem to be more morally flexible than half-fiends (Usually Evil, Often Chaotic Evil) rather than Always Evil) despite the fact that you would expect them, with alignment subtypes, to be less flexible.

Cambions are the offspring of a fiend and a planetouched (typically a tiefling) - whereas the offspring of a human and a fiend would be a human with the Half-Fiend template.

[Anachronity]

I tend to avoid D&D alignment altogether for the reason that D&D alignment is definitively one of black, white, or gray in a way that realistic motivations aren't. In addition a lot of different people writing it had a lot of different views on what should and shouldn't be 'evil'.

Just as an example, intelligent venomous predators like the Wyvern can be neutral (or even good, for Pseudodragons) in D&D, even though using poison is full-stop an evil act. And that's hardly the only internal contradiction.

Thus, there are many different ways in D&D for a character to be remorseful for their actions while still being evil.
-Put on a Helm of Opposite Alignment or draw from the Deck of Many Things, and then realize that you were happier when you were good.
-Be good-aligned and regret killing someone, then get turned into a vampire and still regret it.
-Write 'NE' in the alignment portion of your character sheet, then write "killed some dudes, feels real bad about it, hasn't done anything to fix it but really really wants to" in the backstory section and then never once bring it up during gameplay.
... ta-da!

For the first two you could argue part of the alignment whammy would be suddenly losing your remorse for those actions, but the rules don't mention that, soo...

For that last one, you could argue that's just a cheat. But the world and character are what we say they are.

To call shenanigans on any of those as being unrealistic or unsatisfying is to appeal to realism and therefore reality, where D&D's morality system is woefully inadequate. Everyone has a different definition of 'good' and 'evil'.




That said, it's also not impossible to imagine a character who undeniably falls into D&D's vague definition of evil without recourse to magic alignment whammies or technicalities, and whom is still remorseful. Particularly one involving either the phrase "the ends justify the means" or "there's no going back now".

But it's quite difficult to have a believable evil character who unambiguously and specifically regrets doing the thing that makes them evil in the first place. (i.e. doesn't just regret the people they had to kill along the way, but regrets the way itself). The best example I can give is the Helm of Opposite Alignment example above, which is a magical whammy.


EDIT: although a possible idea for that last sort could be someone who consistently does evil because they are in a circumstance where it's much easier than doing what's right, even though they disdain and regret their actions. This could range from a prolific assassin acting under duress to someone of an 'always-evil' race who only kills because they 'know' they will be killed out of fear if they do not, to the point of striking pre-emptively ("I wish it didn't have to be this way, but those villagers would have mobbed me sooner or later"). It's pretty clear that such characters would at least fall under D&D's definition of 'evil'.

[RedMage125]

Demonweb Pits introduces a new kind of Cambion, which is a full demon, extraplanar, native to the Abyss, rather than a regular half-fiend. Unlike half-fiends, they're wingless. They also seem to be more morally flexible than half-fiends (Usually Evil, Often Chaotic Evil) rather than Always Evil) despite the fact that you would expect them, with alignment subtypes, to be less flexible.

Cambions are the offspring of a fiend and a planetouched (typically a tiefling) - whereas the offspring of a human and a fiend would be a human with the Half-Fiend template.
Hmmm...sound like whoever wrote that adventure didn't really do any research into past editions to learn what a cambion was...

Doesn't matter anyway, the thing I said that sparked this whole discussion was an opinion, anyway. I said "I think of it this way...". If I wasn't clear that I was expressing a personal view, I apologize.


I tend to avoid D&D alignment altogether for the reason that D&D alignment is definitively one of black, white, or gray in a way that realistic motivations aren't. In addition a lot of different people writing it had a lot of different views on what should and shouldn't be 'evil'.
That's an absurd claim.

Just because D&D has objective forces of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos doesn't mean that more complex personalities and motivations "aren't possible". It just means that there's an objective force judging them, and they have an alignment.

The RAW about what is Evil and what isn't are fairly straightforward and consistent. I know some DMs aren't, but that's nothing to blame on the rules.

Seriously, a character can do a lot of Evil things, believing they are for the "greater good". They could be slaughtering orphans because of a prophecy that an orphan will release Demogorgon into the world during planar convergence in seven years, Such a character may believe that they serve Good, overall. But their alignment will be Evil. The premeditated, and above-all unrepentant murder of so many chidren means the character is Evil, even if their end goal is Good. Nothing about alignment precludes such a thing. Your mistake is in assuming that just because the setting has objective Good/Evil/etc, that all mortal perceptions are likewise. This is incorrect. Such a thing is not in the rules at all. Furthermore, the 3.5e PHB explicitly states that an individual's actions are not always exactly in tune with their alignment. Good people may have a greedy streak, evil people may do altruistic things, etc. No one is a 100% perfect caricature of their alignment all the time.


Just as an example, intelligent venomous predators like the Wyvern can be neutral (or even good, for Pseudodragons) in D&D, even though using poison is full-stop an evil act. And that's hardly the only internal contradiction.
You're confusing "poison use" with "natural venom". Creatures to whom venom is natural, using that venom is not an evil act. Using an attack natural to your species is neutral. Thri-kreen are a PC race, and they have a venemous bite, too. Now, even if such a character were to apply purple worm poison to a weapon, yes, that is an evil act.

So that's not even ONE contradiction, you're actually wrong.


Thus, there are many different ways in D&D for a character to be remorseful for their actions while still being evil.
-Put on a Helm of Opposite Alignment or draw from the Deck of Many Things, and then realize that you were happier when you were good.
-Be good-aligned and regret killing someone, then get turned into a vampire and still regret it.
-Write 'NE' in the alignment portion of your character sheet, then write "killed some dudes, feels real bad about it, hasn't done anything to fix it but really really wants to" in the backstory section and then never once bring it up during gameplay.
... ta-da!

For the first two you could argue part of the alignment whammy would be suddenly losing your remorse for those actions, but the rules don't mention that, soo...

For that last one, you could argue that's just a cheat. But the world and character are what we say they are.

To call shenanigans on any of those as being unrealistic or unsatisfying is to appeal to realism and therefore reality, where D&D's morality system is woefully inadequate. Everyone has a different definition of 'good' and 'evil'.
Except that the RAW are actaully quite clear.

See, here's where so many people go wrong. A DM or Player tries to impose their own definitions of "Good/Evil/etc", and then use the mechanics for a system that defines those things another way.

My own definitions of Good/Evil/etccertainly do not perfectly align with what the RAW says. Do you know what I do? I set my own ideas aside when I DM. *Gasp* Shocking. I use the RAW definitions of those things so that my players can look to the same printed source that I am when I make a call on something that may affect a player's alignment.

It's not a valid indictment of a particular system (any system) if it only breaks down when people are not using it as the manual prescribes.



That said, it's also not impossible to imagine a character who undeniably falls into D&D's vague definition of evil without recourse to magic alignment whammies or technicalities, and whom is still remorseful. Particularly one involving either the phrase "the ends justify the means" or "there's no going back now".

But it's quite difficult to have a believable evil character who unambiguously and specifically regrets doing the thing that makes them evil in the first place. (i.e. doesn't just regret the people they had to kill along the way, but regrets the way itself). The best example I can give is the Helm of Opposite Alignment example above, which is a magical whammy.
You're right. Darth Vader regretting losing his temper and killing Padme, or ever turning away from the grip of the Dark Side...such a thing would never resonate with an audience, and a movie with those things in it would never be profitable.



EDIT: although a possible idea for that last sort could be someone who consistently does evil because they are in a circumstance where it's much easier than doing what's right, even though they disdain and regret their actions. This could range from a prolific assassin acting under duress to someone of an 'always-evil' race who only kills because they 'know' they will be killed out of fear if they do not, to the point of striking pre-emptively ("I wish it didn't have to be this way, but those villagers would have mobbed me sooner or later"). It's pretty clear that such characters would at least fall under D&D's definition of 'evil'.

I can't help but picture Kenshin Himura (Samurai X/Ruroni Kenshin) as he continued to murder for the rebellion after Tomoe's death. he would have remained Evil in alignment until after he put up hsi sword and began to actually repent, as myself and others have mentioned. Only after he ceased killing people, and began helping them, seeking forgiveness for his past misdeeds, could his alignment change.

Which is, of course, why the OP was initially asked "what is this hypothetical evil character going to DO about his remorse?" as the main clincher for the question. In D&D, it doesn't matter if you feel bad, only how you act and why. Alignment is descriptive not prescriptive.

[blackjack50]

I meant genuine remorse. The "I wish I could take it back" kind of remorse that keep people awake at night.

Do they keep doing evil?

If they did something evil and then STOP...you have a case for the alignment shifting from evil to good. As long as they don’t continue to do evil. I have a character that is currently evil in a campaign of good players. He does evil, but I’m letting him slowly shift to good. He is doing good deeds and slowly learning that he was wrong through personal attachment to his players. He is developing remorse.

If one continues to do evil, then one does not truly feel remorse.

[Psyren]

Feeling sorry without changing behavior = no change in alignment.

[ezekielraiden]

@Necroticplague: I looked up the section you referred to. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the text. It says that "many monsters" are not tolerated by Neutral or Good communities: some monsters may still be tolerated, and it applies to creatures listed in the MM, many of which aren't sapient. That is not at all the same as saying that racism or bigotry is a Good trait. I wouldn't expect a Good community to tolerate its members keeping dire wolves or ghouls as pets, though more are likely to tolerate the former than the latter.


What you're missing is that 3.xe D&D most closely resembles Deontological ethics. <snop> Now, if we look to the DMG (page 134) where it talks about changing alignments, that occurs when an individual character's behavior is more in keeping with an alignment other than his/her listed one, in a pattern of consistent behavior, over a period of time which shall be no less than one week of in-game time.
I disagree. I say it's least unlike virtue ethics, but it's really a hodgepodge of each. Your phrasing--build-up of acts, time intervals--sounds like virtue ethics, not deontological. You (usually**) need time/multiple actions to reveal your habits. (From here, I'm abbreviating V-ethics, C-ethics, and D-ethics for brevity.) C- and D-ethics both care about individual acts, why acts are Good/Evil, so D&D must include at least one of them, with so many lists of Good/Evil deeds. But you've showed it requires a pattern, rarely a single act, which is literally V-ethics and not the other two. Results can (sometimes) matter, which is explicitly C-ethics and contradicts D-ethics, but many acts (like murder of an innocent) are Just Evil and intent is often determinative, which is explicitly the reverse.

D&D alignment picks and chooses bits of each normative ethical theory. It may or may not be consistent, and each DM can play up literally any of the three as their preferred type. I personally think it's good to recognize that all three have something valuable to say, but (as said initially) I think D&D ultimately falls ever-so-slightly on the V-ethics end. What matters is the pattern of your behavior, the habit you build up. That's why Roy was demonstrated Lawful Good in the end. His pattern consistently reflects Lawful Good as his goal.


Furthermore, the books which give us treatises on how alignment work (BoVD, BoED), tell us that consequences are not what determine the alignment weight of an act, but rather action and intent (BoVD Chapter 2, under header of "Intent and Context").
Yet even this is more complex than that. Killing a being of "consummate evil" is never evil, even if your intent is selfish or even wicked--C-ethics. Mistakenly killing a non-demon you thought was a demon is always Evil (D-ethics)...unless the overall context of your actions demonstrates you were doing your best to maintain your pattern of behavior (V-ethics). Yet again, they manage to wheel out, in a single column of text, all three theories in different ways.

D-ethics says context never matters. C-ethics and V-ethics say it does; the former based on the real/expected results, the latter, on the context of your actions. D&D says both intent and context matter, and that within context, both desire/intent and overall trend/pattern matter. All three things come into play: the moral weight of an action can be determined by its innate moral character, the consequences of the act, or your overall behavioral trend, depending on the details of each thing (what the action was, what the consequences were, and what your overall behavior has been).


...the standard Trolley problem proposed by Foot is utterly useless in a D&D framework.
As I understood it, the trolley problem wasn't meant to demonstrate that one or the other is best/right/etc., nor even to be a "how do you resolve this?" problem--it was meant to show weakness in prevailing moral theory at the time. Foot used it to show her colleagues the real, intuitive reluctance to pull the lever: non-cognitive consequentialism, despite its compelling simplicity, might be intuitively wrong sometimes. It's very much worth remembering that Foot essentially started modern virtue ethics; she didn't care for either of the two prevalent theories of her day (deontology and consequentialism) and the non-cognitivism of moral theory at the time. (For reference, Foot is one of my absolute favorite 20th century philosophers, I literally can't get enough of her work. Between her, Chesterton, St. Aquinas, and Lewis, I basically can't help being Aristotelian.)


But that's because D&D has specific mores of "Evil" and "not Evil" that don't always line up with the real world, mostly to accomodate for fantasy adventuring (which is why deontological ethics don't perfectly model it either).
Bingo: it's not really any of the three. It picks and chooses useful bits from each, taking the least from consequentialism. It seems that you and I disagree about whether it takes more from virtue ethics or deontology. However, we agree on consequentialism having the least impact...but still having some.


True, but such instances are meant to be rare or unique cases. The only reason even THOSE exceptions are permissible by the rules, is so DM can entertain classic tropes of fantasy
Their rarity wasn't relevant to me. Only the fact that a place is carved for them was relevant. It shows one way how virtue ethics is coded into the system: even beings "made of [Alignment-ness]" can break their extremely strong, in-built habits in extreme cases, which throws spanners into all sorts of the above topics. Killing a demon is always non-Evil...but what about a demon actually trying to repent and change? What about a demon that has repented and changed, but not enough to shed the [Evil] subtype yet (perhaps literally in the process of completing an epic atonement spell)? What about one that has shed the [Evil] subtype? Or the (lamentably) much more common "fallen angel" concept: if it's always Evil to kill an angel, is it evil to kill a fallen angel? Suddenly everything is much, much more complicated for D-ethics, because V-ethic considerations may apply.


I usually think of it this way: Except for the extremely rare or unique individual, Outsiders with alignment subtypes do not possess the same level of free will that a mortal does. They are not Good/Evil/whatever because of what they choose to do, but rather because of what they are.
I see it as such beings are free to choose...they just never DO choose otherwise, because to do so would make them something other than what they are. It's a very virtue-ethics perspective. An angel literally ceases to be an angel in the instant of committing an evil deed; in the same way as "not telling lies is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for being honest," one can say "not committing evil deeds is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for being an angel."* As soon as you have told a lie, you are no longer honest. It's just that, for mortals, these changes are purely behavioral/metaphysical. Outsiders manifest metaphysical things physically, so their physical forms and properties instantly (assuming they don't disguise themselves with magic or the like). It's why falling is so much easier than redemption. One important** lie is all it takes to break your streak of honesty. You can never go back to having told zero lies, the only way to redeem from that is to build up a new honest streak. That can take years for mortals...it might take centuries or millennia for an outsider, who often has much grander crimes than merely lying.

*Unfortunately, this suffers from exactly the same problem as Lawful Stupid Syndrome for Paladins. That is, people take "if you are a Paladin, then you never commit evil deeds" and turn it into "if you are a Paladin, none of your deeds are evil," and that error of reasoning is a serious problem. Angels do NOT have a carte-blanche license to do whatever they want and assert it's Good.

**Severity and frequency matter. Bravery is demonstrated a lot less often than honesty in daily life. Being a coward in one battle may be compensated for with being particularly brave in just a single further battle, while telling a "small"/"white" lie may not even need future truth-telling to merit forgiveness. It's a matter of pattern and trend--you can erase all, most, some, or only a little of your past trends, depending on the weight and frequency of the relevant actions.

[Conradine]

Ok. Basically the OP question - in my mind at least - was: "when it cross the line the Evil, how much rotten is the character?" and I thought the answer was "almost totally". It seems it's not the common concept here. But ok, I like discussing things.

[ezekielraiden]

That's not just remorse. That's Repentance, with a capital R. It's all the elements of the Atonement spell minus the actual spell. It's not merely a desire to take it back, but a will to change - that is, the mindset of someone who is no longer Evil. That's the point.

By definition, if you truly repent in this way, you aren't Evil anymore. So that's a bit of a trick question - "Are you still Evil if you're no longer Evil?" Obviously not.
As I demonstrated above, at least based on a lexical analysis of the words "remorse" vs "regret," the former strongly connotes (and, in some dictionaries, even denotes) a desire for Repentance as you put it. Some dictionaries define it with the word "contrition"--passing the buck, sure, but when you look that up it explicitly talks about "penitence," and "deeply felt remorse." So, with "genuine remorse," we seem to have a "genuine [desire for repentence]" implied and maybe even outright stated. I don't think a desire can be genuine if you never lift a finger to act on it, so...

Can we call it "genuine remorse" if the person in question doesn't genuinely desire repentance?


Ok. Basically the OP question - in my mind at least - was: "when it cross the line the Evil, how much rotten is the character?" and I thought the answer was "almost totally". It seems it's not the common concept here. But ok, I like discussing things.
Most people aren't going to have much interest in "pure Evil and only Evil" characters, as they tend to be written very badly (because they're hard to write well). Authors give them no further depth anywhere else, so they become plastic and flat and hollow, seeming blatantly artificial. It is still entirely possible to write pure-evil characters, and have them be legitimately interesting, deep characters...for reasons other than their motivations or values. But because it is challenging to do such a thing, most writing favors making morally complex characters, ones where we feel empathy for them, or join them in their wish that things could be different. That doesn't make their deeds less evil, it just makes them sympathetic. The whole point of a pure-evil villain is to make them entirely not sympathetic, and too many authors make the mistake of trying to do both things at once. (Apparently, Ultron was a good example, though I never saw the movie so I can't really comment.)

[RedMage125]

Ok. Basically the OP question - in my mind at least - was: "when it cross the line the Evil, how much rotten is the character?" and I thought the answer was "almost totally". It seems it's not the common concept here. But ok, I like discussing things.
The problem is that you've not really answered the most pertinent thing to your OP. The question posited in your OP included a given that the hypothetical character we are dealing with is, in fact, Evil in alignment. Then you asked about remorse and whether or not the character would still be Evil.

What you have consistently failed to respond to is..."what does this hypothetical character do about it?" Do they change their Evil ways because of this remorse and cease doing evil deeds and attempt to repent? If so, then they are on the path to non-Evil alignment. If they are just bemoaning their circumstances and wal;lowing in self-pity while not changing, then they are still Evil.

You've gotten that answer, worded different ways, at least 3 times now. You haven't told us which your OP is going to do about the remorse.


@Necroticplague: I looked up the section you referred to. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the text. It says that "many monsters" are not tolerated by Neutral or Good communities: some monsters may still be tolerated, and it applies to creatures listed in the MM, many of which aren't sapient. That is not at all the same as saying that racism or bigotry is a Good trait. I wouldn't expect a Good community to tolerate its members keeping dire wolves or ghouls as pets, though more are likely to tolerate the former than the latter.
I agree. That's not "racism".



I disagree. I say it's least unlike virtue ethics, but it's really a hodgepodge of each. Your phrasing--build-up of acts, time intervals--sounds like virtue ethics, not deontological. You (usually**) need time/multiple actions to reveal your habits. (From here, I'm abbreviating V-ethics, C-ethics, and D-ethics for brevity.) C- and D-ethics both care about individual acts, why acts are Good/Evil, so D&D must include at least one of them, with so many lists of Good/Evil deeds. But you've showed it requires a pattern, rarely a single act, which is literally V-ethics and not the other two. Results can (sometimes) matter, which is explicitly C-ethics and contradicts D-ethics, but many acts (like murder of an innocent) are Just Evil and intent is often determinative, which is explicitly the reverse.

D&D alignment picks and chooses bits of each normative ethical theory. It may or may not be consistent, and each DM can play up literally any of the three as their preferred type. I personally think it's good to recognize that all three have something valuable to say, but (as said initially) I think D&D ultimately falls ever-so-slightly on the V-ethics end. What matters is the pattern of your behavior, the habit you build up. That's why Roy was demonstrated Lawful Good in the end. His pattern consistently reflects Lawful Good as his goal.
The "build up of acts" and "time intervals" are just in relation to a PC's alignment changing, which is, by RAW, in the purview of the DM. Those are the guidelines on how to go about it. I agree entirely on what you said in the asteriked part as well, about severity and frequency.

Because Good and Evil are objective, quantifiable forces, though, D-ethics is the ones that it bears the most similarity to*.

*Honestly, D-ethics and V-ethics are very similar to me. While I greatly enjoy this discussion (refreshing to have someone who actually understands things like the Trolley Problem, as well as the context of Foot's posit of it to begin with), I must confess that I did not study Ethics very deeply in college. I took ONE college-level Ethics course and ONE Philosophy course when I was in college. I've continued to lightly peruse matters relating to philosophy (and Ethics as related) as a hobby, but no further actual academic advancement in the field. More recently, my wife has been taking Philosophy and Ethics in pursuit of her degrees in Psychology (and currently a Masters in Counseling), and she and I have had some great discussions that also opened my mind to a lot (she really likes Hobbes). So I just want to add that you sound like you've devoted a LOT more time on this topic than I am and are probably significantly more of an expert, so if I get a few specifics wrong, I am open to being educated on the matter. Better than me accidentally making you combatative because I got something crossed and you think I'm just some idiot, lol. I am, however, VERY familiar with 3.5e's alignment mechanics and rules, even AFB.

And as an aside, if you think perusing Ethics as a "hobby"" sounds weird, one of my other hobbies is etymology. Looking into the origins of certain words and phrases is something I do for fun, I really am that much of a nerd.



Yet even this is more complex than that. Killing a being of "consummate evil" is never evil, even if your intent is selfish or even wicked--C-ethics. Mistakenly killing a non-demon you thought was a demon is always Evil (D-ethics)...unless the overall context of your actions demonstrates you were doing your best to maintain your pattern of behavior (V-ethics). Yet again, they manage to wheel out, in a single column of text, all three theories in different ways.

D-ethics says context never matters. C-ethics and V-ethics say it does; the former based on the real/expected results, the latter, on the context of your actions. D&D says both intent and context matter, and that within context, both desire/intent and overall trend/pattern matter. All three things come into play: the moral weight of an action can be determined by its innate moral character, the consequences of the act, or your overall behavioral trend, depending on the details of each thing (what the action was, what the consequences were, and what your overall behavior has been).
But Consequences ONLY really matter as they frame context. Keep in mind, absolute D-ethics were designed in the real world, where we do not have beings who are literally made of evil, and even the concept of an "innately" evil being that is intelligent without having the kind of free will that we associate with ourselves is alien to the concept of D-ethics, or V-ethics, for that matter. As soon as you begin applying thse processes to a world with such fantastical elements, some of the absolutes are going to break down. A demon is not a disturbed individual who needs mental health help, nor is it a foreigner with a different world perspective; it is evil and chaos incarnated into flesh, and it's worldview is in many ways, alien to us.

And you seem to be confusing "the alignment weight of an act" with "changing alignment", at least somewhat. That's my perception anyways. If you mistakenly kill an innocent person because you thought they were a demon, then it was still an evil act, and will always remain so. If you find out the truth (and let's assume you're a good-aligned person), you will probably be filled with guilt and seek to make amends. Thus no danger of an alignment shift. if your response to finding out that it was not a demon is to coldly shrug it off as "casualty of war against demons", you're becoming less Good (because concern for the well-being of sentient beings is one of the hallmarks for Good), and are likely starting to shift towards a Neutral alignment. If that trend continues, and you demonstrate, through your actions, that your outlook has changed, your alignment will as well.

Because that's all alignment is, a grotesquely oversimplified summation of your general outlooks and beliefs, which are shown through your actions.



As I understood it, the trolley problem wasn't meant to demonstrate that one or the other is best/right/etc., nor even to be a "how do you resolve this?" problem--it was meant to show weakness in prevailing moral theory at the time. Foot used it to show her colleagues the real, intuitive reluctance to pull the lever: non-cognitive consequentialism, despite its compelling simplicity, might be intuitively wrong sometimes. It's very much worth remembering that Foot essentially started modern virtue ethics; she didn't care for either of the two prevalent theories of her day (deontology and consequentialism) and the non-cognitivism of moral theory at the time. (For reference, Foot is one of my absolute favorite 20th century philosophers, I literally can't get enough of her work. Between her, Chesterton, St. Aquinas, and Lewis, I basically can't help being Aristotelian.)
Man, that is seriously so refreshing. For the "non college+ level Ethics" types, however, I usually break it down into layman's terms. Which is my bit about how it only tells you how the person being asked weighs Utilitarianism vis Personal Accountability. That there is no "right answer". Not morally, anyway. Because most humans (at least subconsciously) accept some means of absolute moral qualifiers (like "murder is bad"), while also being aware of "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". What I find ironic is that most of the same people, if asked whether they think a hypothetical 3rd party should pull the lever, will almost always say yes. It's only when put into a situation where the querent themself is asked to be accountable for the causing the death do they falter and consider that a difficult decision.*

But seriously, the way D&D alignment mores work, Trolley problem is useless to alignment, because the PC at the switch has no agency to actually commit an Evil act or not. The Vilalin who tied the 6 people inthe deathtrap is the Evil one. Which is why I always insist that the Fat Man and Fat Villain variants are the only ones to be used for D&D. Because one gives the PC in question the agency to actually murder one person to save 5. And because the Fat Villain example gives a D&D character complete carte blanche to push the fat SOB in front of the trolley.

*Which is why a TRULY sinister villain will tie up 5 child-murderers/rapists to one track, and a saintly old priest to the other, and not tell the person at the switch...MUHAHAHAHAHAHA...errr...sorry.


Bingo: it's not really any of the three. It picks and chooses useful bits from each, taking the least from consequentialism. It seems that you and I disagree about whether it takes more from virtue ethics or deontology. However, we agree on consequentialism having the least impact...but still having some.
...
And now I feel bad for writing this much, because I must have skipped this line when I initially read your response, not seeing it until I was multi-quoting and got down this far. Sorry. not gonna delete it though, lol. I like going on verbose rants.



Their rarity wasn't relevant to me. Only the fact that a place is carved for them was relevant. It shows one way how virtue ethics is coded into the system: even beings "made of [Alignment-ness]" can break their extremely strong, in-built habits in extreme cases, which throws spanners into all sorts of the above topics.
Gonna have to break the next bit up to make my responses more clear. Also, I am more or less listing what would be my DM-adjudication, sticking as close to the RAW as possible. Also, I am assuming in all of these cases, the demon in question has already changed alignment.

Killing a demon is always non-Evil...but what about a demon actually trying to repent and change?
Given demonic propensity for deceit...I would say killing a demon that is professing repentance is still non-Evil. Even if it can somehow prove it, you're removing energies of Evil and Chaos from the material plane. So assuming it's legit, I would say non-evil and non-good.


What about a demon that has repented and changed, but not enough to shed the [Evil] subtype yet (perhaps literally in the process of completing an epic atonement spell)?
So that just requires a ritual in Savage Species...not repentence. However, it may (as I discussed several posts ago) have VERY long-term implications for the demon. So a demon undergoing those rituals (which I would explain in-character as purging the chaos and evil from its essence, since subtypes are very much a metagame concept), should be allowed to do so. but again, if the PC in question does not know that the demon is planning to undergo these rituals...same answer as above.

What about one that has shed the [Evil] subtype?
If that is the case, then such a thing would be provable, quantifiably. Such a creature would no longer radiate evil. Why would this hypothetical PC continue to atack them? I guess it depends on the circumstances. What is this (former) demon doing? If it's just living it's best (former-demon) life, minding it's own business, then yes, because that's murder...of a being that no longer meets the qualifiers of "consummate, irredeemable evil". Because the evil has literally been purged from them.


Or the (lamentably) much more common "fallen angel" concept: if it's always Evil to kill an angel, is it evil to kill a fallen angel? Suddenly everything is much, much more complicated for D-ethics, because V-ethic considerations may apply.
It would absolutely not be evil to kill a fallen angel. Because not only are you killing an evil outsider (non-evil act), but especially if it still had it's (Good) subtype, you have actually allowed a new, Good celestial to form in the Upper Planes.

I kind of like how 5e answered this, btw. If a devil ceases to be Lawful Evil, it actually ceases to be a devil. If it became Chaotic Evil, for example, it would actually BE a demon (Graz'zt). An angel that fell and became Lawful Evil would actually no longer BE an angel (Erinyes come to mind).



I see it as such beings are free to choose...they just never DO choose otherwise, because to do so would make them something other than what they are. It's a very virtue-ethics perspective. An angel literally ceases to be an angel in the instant of committing an evil deed; in the same way as "not telling lies is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for being honest," one can say "not committing evil deeds is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for being an angel."* As soon as you have told a lie, you are no longer honest. It's just that, for mortals, these changes are purely behavioral/metaphysical. Outsiders manifest metaphysical things physically, so their physical forms and properties instantly (assuming they don't disguise themselves with magic or the like). It's why falling is so much easier than redemption. One important** lie is all it takes to break your streak of honesty. You can never go back to having told zero lies, the only way to redeem from that is to build up a new honest streak. That can take years for mortals...it might take centuries or millennia for an outsider, who often has much grander crimes than merely lying.
Like I said above, that staement was one of preference. I view these kinds of outsiders as beings with less free will than us, in general. This is because the Evil of the Lower Planes, that same energy, is the exact same energy in the heart of an Evil Fighter. The proof of this is that an unholy sword, a demon, an undead, and an evil fighter, all radiate the same energy (in different strengths) under a Detect Evil spell. So the Evil that makes up a Fiend's actual body is the same evil in the hearts of mortals...but A LOT more of it. So to these beings, that Evil is literally so much a part of what they are (moreso than just who they are), that they simply don't have the absolute free will that Prime-native mortals do. They are MADE of Evil, and live in an environment utterly suffused with it. the same is true of Celestials and Good. OotS even says during Roy's judgement "it's easy for a being of pure Law and Good to live up to these ideals". To my mind, it's easy because it's in their nature. It is a very rare instance (less than 1%) of these beings that actually have sufficient free will to even be capable of being anything other than what the rest of their kind are, and an even smaller percentage are those that actually do.

That's how I rationalize it all, anyway.


*Unfortunately, this suffers from exactly the same problem as Lawful Stupid Syndrome for Paladins. That is, people take "if you are a Paladin, then you never commit evil deeds" and turn it into "if you are a Paladin, none of your deeds are evil," and that error of reasoning is a serious problem. Angels do NOT have a carte-blanche license to do whatever they want and assert it's Good.
Man, and neither of those are correct. The first would require alignment to be precriptive instead of descriptive, which it is not. If it were, paladins would not be able to fall from grace. the second sounds like a sociopath. And while you are correct about Angels, it is also true that most of them would need to justify something AS Good before doing something questionable. We must also further realize that an immortal entity may have a much different viewpoint than us. If a group of angels trying to stop a demonic horde realized that carpet-bombing a 10-square mile area would be the only way to wipe out the horde (and thus save thousands), then the couple dozen mortals and hundred or so animals in the area would be an acceptable loss of life in the long run. Such beings would justify it as a "more Good" option than hunting the demons down individually, because it results in less loss of life. Not simply "because they are Good, it is a Good act". Obviously, the objective nature of Good and Evil in D&D means that justifications for such a thing do not weigh into the actual judgement of the act itself.


**Severity and frequency matter. Bravery is demonstrated a lot less often than honesty in daily life. Being a coward in one battle may be compensated for with being particularly brave in just a single further battle, while telling a "small"/"white" lie may not even need future truth-telling to merit forgiveness. It's a matter of pattern and trend--you can erase all, most, some, or only a little of your past trends, depending on the weight and frequency of the relevant actions.
The RAW support this view. Even the same page (DMG, page 134) which tells us that it takes time and consistency to change alignment does say that in rare instances a severe act could be enough to change one's alignment.

But to me, we're talking about "Darth Vader sacrificing his life to kill the emperor and save Luke" level of act here.

[Bartmanhomer]

Look, everyone. It's really simple. It's not rocket science. Yes, an evil character can feel remorse after that it up to the character to whatever to change his or her ways or not. End of story. :mad:

[ezekielraiden]

Look, everyone. It's really simple. It's not rocket science. Yes, an evil character can feel remorse after that it up to the character to whatever to change his or her ways or not. End of story. :mad:

Whereas I see a gap--that apparently most other people here don't--between mere "regret" (feeling bad about past choices) and "genuine remorse" (truly wishing to repent past choices). I don't think you can feel remorse, and also feel that you were justified doing what you did. To feel remorse is to believe you were not justified.

@RedMage125:
Glad I could provide a positive discussion environment.

Don't have the brain for a real play-by-play response (though it sounds like we both feel we agree more than we disagree). I was sort of considering the whole of alignment, but most specifically what decides what a person's alignment is, rather than what decides whether an act is or is not of a particular alignment. I suppose I just take the books at their word for their lists of defined actions, and thus consider questions about that closed, whereas questions about alignment acquisition may still be open and thus worthy of discussion. At the same time, I feel that some of the disparity you noted, between what-acts-are and what-people-are, actually lies in the ethical theories themselves. V-ethics isn't strictly interested in whether individual acts are evil or good per se, instead, it's interested in what constitutes a good person, what characteristics morally-sound people have. In that sense, the other two are opposed to it, as both consider the acts themselves, effectively reasoning that as long as an actor always engages in moral acts, they'll be a moral person by default.

In fact, we can classify each of the 2-vs-1 groupings on at least some line:
1. C/D are concerned with actions themselves (maxims/calculations determining behavior). V-ethics is concerned with personal character.
2. C/V are concerned with results of some kind (evaluated benefit/development of traits). D-ethics exclusively cares about intent.
3. D/V are at least partially a priori, reasoning from given principles. C-ethics is almost entirely a posteriori (e.g. finding a utility function).

Since I *do* naturally have a virtue-ethics bias, I may be overly focused on the "what determines personal alignment" rather than "what determines an action's alignment." If we restrict ourselves to the morality of classes of actions, then I agree that the system is almost totally D-ethics with light touches of the other two (e.g. the system seems to accept that an act's evilness can be partially conditioned by whether it's consistent with a character's traits and prior history, which is definitely V-ethics). I think that's sort of a shrug-worthy point, though, because V-ethics mostly doesn't *do* analysis of acts in and of themselves. If we consider how alignment is acquired--at least by RAW guidance, though DM adjudication is of unquestionable importance--then it seems virtue ethics is primary, deontology secondary, and consequentialism a ways less prominent than either, but still relevant.

[Necroticplague]

@Necroticplague: I looked up the section you referred to. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the text. It says that "many monsters" are not tolerated by Neutral or Good communities: some monsters may still be tolerated, and it applies to creatures listed in the MM, many of which aren't sapient. That is not at all the same as saying that racism or bigotry is a Good trait. I wouldn't expect a Good community to tolerate its members keeping dire wolves or ghouls as pets, though more are likely to tolerate the former than the latter.

1. It’s clearly not talking about non-sapient creatures, because the context is about finding trainers for feats, something that would exclude non-sapient creatures in the first place. It’s not ‘is anyone gonna complain about my attack dog’ but ‘how hard would it be to find someone who can teach my how to resist being turned?’

2. It does not say ‘many monsters’. The whole relevant quote is as follows:

Evil communities may tolerate the pres-
ence of monsters that other communities would not, but neutral and good communities are liable to drive away monsters and those who would associate with them. Nothing about ‘many’ like you state, just drive them away, full stop.

[Alcore]

Look, everyone. It's really simple. It's not rocket science. Yes, an evil character can feel remorse after that it up to the character to whatever to change his or her ways or not. End of story. :mad:

Yep!

Problem is the others are off topic;


by redmage;

The problem is that you've not really answered the most pertinent thing to your OP. The question posited in your OP included a given that the hypothetical character we are dealing with is, in fact, Evil in alignment. Then you asked about remorse and whether or not the character would still be Evil.

What you have consistently failed to respond to is..."what does this hypothetical character do about it?" Do they change their Evil ways because of this remorse and cease doing evil deeds and attempt to repent? If so, then they are on the path to non-Evil alignment. If they are just bemoaning their circumstances and wal;lowing in self-pity while not changing, then they are still Evil.

You've gotten that answer, worded different ways, at least 3 times now. You haven't told us which your OP is going to do about the remorse.he doesn't have to respond or ask follow up questions. He doesn't even need to keep reading. And only 3 times? Unlikely. It's done and over with on the first page.



Whereas I see a gap--that apparently most other people here don't--between mere "regret" (feeling bad about past choices) and "genuine remorse" (truly wishing to repent past choices). I don't think you can feel remorse, and also feel that you were justified doing what you did. To feel remorse is to believe you were not justified.sorry ezekielraiden, the gap isn't there to my eyes either. Google agrees with me at least.

re·morse
/rəˈmôrs/
noun
deep regret or guilt for a wrong committed.
"they were filled with remorse and shame"
(Definition brought to you by google)

Remorse = regret

but not repentance though to be fair i believe you need remorse to have repentance. Otherwise you're closer to just paying a bill.

[AnimeTheCat]

Whereas I see a gap--that apparently most other people here don't--between mere "regret" (feeling bad about past choices) and "genuine remorse" (truly wishing to repent past choices). I don't think you can feel remorse, and also feel that you were justified doing what you did. To feel remorse is to believe you were not justified.

So... I saw what you tried to state earlier and I thought it was convincing enough so I went and looked for myself. I pulled the definition of Remorse from three different locations. Here's what I found about the definition of Remorse:



Remorse (n): a gnawing distress arising from a sense of guilt for past wrongs: Self-Reproach
Self-Reproach (n): Harsh criticism or disapproval of oneself especially for wrongdoing
Guilt (n): (1) the fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating the law and involving a penalty; (2a) the state of one whohas committed an offense especially consciously; (2b) feelings of deserving blame especially for imagined offenses or from a sense of inadequacy; (3) a feeling of deserving blame for offenses.
Guilt (v): to cause (someone) to feel guilty; to persuade (someone) to do something by causing felings of guilt.



Remorse (n): deep and painful regret for wrongdoing; compunction.
Compunction (n): (1) a feeling of uneasiness or anxiety of the conscience caused by regret for doing wrong or causing pain; contrition; remorse; (2) any uneasiness or hesitation about the rightness of an action.
Regret (v): (1) to feel sorrow or remorse for (an act, fault, disappointment, etc.); (2) to think of with a sense of loss.
Regret (n): (3) a sense of loss, disappointment, dissatisfaction, etc; (4) a feeling of sorrow or remorse for a fault, act, loss, disappointment, etc.; (5) regrets, a polite, usually formal refusal of an invitation; (6) a note expressing regret at one's inability to accept an invitation.



Remorse (n): deep regret or guilt for a wrong committed.
Regret (v): feel sad, repentant, or disappointed over (something that has happened or been done, especially a loss or missed opportunity.
Regret (n): a feeling of sadness, repentance, or disappointment over something that has happened or been done.
Guilt (n): the fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime
Guilt (v): make (someone) feel guilty, especially in order to induce them to do something.


OK, so with those defintions of remorse, and the supporting key words in those definitions (which I hav underlined) it's pretty obvious what the word remorse means. It's not, as you say "truly wishing to repent past choices", it is more a realization of having committed past wrongs and knowing that what you have done is wrong accompanied by a feeling of guilt for doing those wrongs. Nothing in the definition of Remorse from three different sources says that you have to seek to repent for those actions. In fact, the one definition that indicates repentence is the Oxford definition of regret, which claimed is only "Feeling bad for past choices". If anything, it is the other way around, and since the Oxford definition of Remorse includes the words "regret OR guilt", by definition you do not have to seek repentence for what is making you feel remorse.

If you only look to synonyms to define words for you, and neglect the definitions of the word you are actually looking at, you can arrive at some seemingly correct, but not quite accurate, ideas about the definitions of such words. Different words are different for a reason, and synonyms aren't always exactly the same in definition, in fact they're usually slightly different from each other. If Remorse, Guilt, Regret, etc. all mean the same thing (as would be indicated by the synonyms), then all three words wouldn't exist.

That's just my opinion, and I think you're absolutely entitled to your own, but I don't think you're looking at the actual definition of the word you're analyzing and I think it led to some errors in definition during the formation of your opinion and argument.

[RedMage125]

he doesn't have to respond or ask follow up questions. He doesn't even need to keep reading. And only 3 times? Unlikely. It's done and over with on the first page.

Then it's entirely disingenuous for him to keep asking the same question parsed different ways, which he has done.

Which is the sort of thing that makes me think he is maybe fishing for a specific answer, and waiting to respond to that (i.e. confirmation bias).

And I said "at least 3 times", did I not?


1. It’s clearly not talking about non-sapient creatures, because the context is about finding trainers for feats, something that would exclude non-sapient creatures in the first place. It’s not ‘is anyone gonna complain about my attack dog’ but ‘how hard would it be to find someone who can teach my how to resist being turned?’

2. It does not say ‘many monsters’. The whole relevant quote is as follows:
Nothing about ‘many’ like you state, just drive them away, full stop.

In a world where some creatures, sapient or not, actually are inherently or innately evil, or at least destructive, trying to make a comparison between communities seeking to preserve their overall safety by not allowing these creatures into their communities with "racism" is a non-starter. If a community has been raided by goblinoids in the past, they know goblinoids have raided nearby settlements in the past, and they have perfectly logical and valid reasons to fear goblinoids, then them telling a Bugbear character (even one that clearly isn't engaging in violent behavior right now) that he is not welcome there isn't a parallel to real-world Racism.

Furthermore, players are (or at least should be) fully aware, before they choose to play a onstrous character, of how the world is likely to respond to such a character.

Whereas I see a gap--that apparently most other people here don't--between mere "regret" (feeling bad about past choices) and "genuine remorse" (truly wishing to repent past choices). I don't think you can feel remorse, and also feel that you were justified doing what you did. To feel remorse is to believe you were not justified.

@RedMage125:
Glad I could provide a positive discussion environment.

Don't have the brain for a real play-by-play response (though it sounds like we both feel we agree more than we disagree). I was sort of considering the whole of alignment, but most specifically what decides what a person's alignment is, rather than what decides whether an act is or is not of a particular alignment. I suppose I just take the books at their word for their lists of defined actions, and thus consider questions about that closed, whereas questions about alignment acquisition may still be open and thus worthy of discussion. At the same time, I feel that some of the disparity you noted, between what-acts-are and what-people-are, actually lies in the ethical theories themselves. V-ethics isn't strictly interested in whether individual acts are evil or good per se, instead, it's interested in what constitutes a good person, what characteristics morally-sound people have. In that sense, the other two are opposed to it, as both consider the acts themselves, effectively reasoning that as long as an actor always engages in moral acts, they'll be a moral person by default.

In fact, we can classify each of the 2-vs-1 groupings on at least some line:
1. C/D are concerned with actions themselves (maxims/calculations determining behavior). V-ethics is concerned with personal character.
2. C/V are concerned with results of some kind (evaluated benefit/development of traits). D-ethics exclusively cares about intent.
3. D/V are at least partially a priori, reasoning from given principles. C-ethics is almost entirely a posteriori (e.g. finding a utility function).

Since I *do* naturally have a virtue-ethics bias, I may be overly focused on the "what determines personal alignment" rather than "what determines an action's alignment." If we restrict ourselves to the morality of classes of actions, then I agree that the system is almost totally D-ethics with light touches of the other two (e.g. the system seems to accept that an act's evilness can be partially conditioned by whether it's consistent with a character's traits and prior history, which is definitely V-ethics). I think that's sort of a shrug-worthy point, though, because V-ethics mostly doesn't *do* analysis of acts in and of themselves. If we consider how alignment is acquired--at least by RAW guidance, though DM adjudication is of unquestionable importance--then it seems virtue ethics is primary, deontology secondary, and consequentialism a ways less prominent than either, but still relevant.

That's where I disagree with you. I see RAW D&D as being D-Primary, C-secondary (as consequences only matter to frame context), and V-less prominent. See, because the analysis of the acts themselves is one of the MOST important things when determining alignment, or changing it. A progression of Evil acts moves one's alignment towards Evil. If one performs Evil acts as a means to performing Good acts, one is likely Neutral on that scale (Indecisiveness Indicates Neutrality, DMG, page 134). Furthermore, the BoVD and BoED tell us that some acts have moral weight regardless of context. Since V-ethics doesn't really concern itself with analysis of acts themselves, how can it be "primary"? It is only through commission of acts that are more in keeping with a different alignment than one's listed alignment does one's alignment actually change. Paladins lose class features if even one Evil act is intentionally committed (which is where context comes in), even if it doesn't change their alignment. A progressive pattern of consistent Chaotic behavior could change a paladin's alignment to Neutral Good, and also cause a loss of class features. So really, the Good/Evil/Law/Chaos weight of given acts is the most significant factor. It's just important to recognize that, by the RAW, Intent and Context matter, so pure D-ethics is not a thing (I'd call it 2/3s D-ethics, 1/3 C).

The reason for this disconnect in our views is that alignment is NOT prescriptive. One's "personal alignment" is determined AFTER a pattern of actions with alignment weight are. It doesn't matter whether or not you are a Lawful Good individual, and a genuinely good person, animating undead creatures, for example, is an Evil act. Even if you command these undead monster to do something Good, like, say, perpetually turning a giant wheel that keeps constant fresh water flowing to the town's well and irrigation systems, thus improving the health and quality of life for the whole town. That's Evil act followed by Good act, and a consistent pattern of using objectively Evil means to accomplish Good ends shows that your outlook is one where some Evil is acceptable to you, as long as certain other lines are not crossed, your alignment shifts to Lawful Neutral, but probably will not shift any further into Evil. And that's how the RAW works (PHB, begining of chapter 6; DMG, page 134).

Honestly, the only place V-ethics seem to have is in the objective definitions and distinctions of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos themselves, before they are ever applied to an individual. The PHB (Chapter 6) tells us things like "Good people show concern for the dignity of sentient beings" and "people who are neutral with respect to good and evil may make sacrifices for those close to them, but not strangers", and "lawful individuals live by some sort of code" (I'm paraphrasing all of those here, because I'm AFB). So in that respect, V-ethics is sort of present, only when saying "these are the characteristics of Good (or Evil/law/Chaos)". Afetr that point, the alignment of an individual is determined by their actions (even ones that occur "off-screen" as a part of backstory at character creation). One does not do Good things because one is Lawful Good, one is Lawful Good because one does Good things.

[Conradine]

Then it's entirely disingenuous for him to keep asking the same question parsed different ways, which he has done.

Which is the sort of thing that makes me think he is maybe fishing for a specific answer, and waiting to respond to that (i.e. confirmation bias).

And I said "at least 3 times", did I not?


Here's my answer: irrilevant.
It's irrilevant what the character do. All I wanted to know is if, in your opinion, crossing the Evil line means being deadened to emotions like remorse.

[Efrate]

Again read red fels guide to LE.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil

Evil is not lacking in any emotion, if anything it's likely to feel more strongly than good. On all levels. Because for a "normal" human their "passions" operate on what I would call a higher or more intense level. It takes quite a bit of mental gymnastics, dedication, or extreme emotion to get your average human to do evil, even more so to dedicate themselves to it imo.

[Bartmanhomer]

Here's my answer: irrelevant.
It's irrelevant what the character does. All I wanted to know is if, in your opinion, crossing the Evil line means being deadened to emotions like remorse.

It can be which I explain multiple times. After that is up to the character to change his or her way or not.

[Psyren]

Here's my answer: irrilevant.
It's irrilevant what the character do. All I wanted to know is if, in your opinion, crossing the Evil line means being deadened to emotions like remorse.

Actions aren't irrelevant to alignment; quite the opposite in fact.

[RedMage125]

Here's my answer: irrilevant.
It's irrilevant what the character do. All I wanted to know is if, in your opinion, crossing the Evil line means being deadened to emotions like remorse.

That's not what you initially asked. You asked if being remorseful made him no longer evil.

It's been answered multiple times that an evil character CAN, in fact, feel remorse.

And it is actually VERY relevant what his actions are, because that's what determines what his alignment either changes to or continues to be.

Because you have it backwards. It's actually doing evil deeds and becoming deadened to remorse that makes one BECOME evil.

[Conradine]

It's actually doing evil deeds and becoming deadened to remorse that makes one BECOME evil.

Becoming deadened to remorse makes one become evil.
Does that means you think that UNTIL a character is not deadened, he's not yet evil?



It's been answered multiple times that an evil character CAN, in fact, feel remorse.


Good. I had my answer.
I tought that the moment one stops feeling remorse was the "black line", the "Moral Event Horizon". I was wrong. It happens. Thanks everyone for the discussion.

[RedMage125]

Becoming deadened to remorse makes one become evil.
Does that means you think that UNTIL a character is not deadened, he's not yet evil?
No, it's not a requirement. But at the point that he has become "deadened", his outlooks and beliefs have changed, haven't they? At that point, he is certainly evil. but the alignment change occurs during that period.



Good. I had my answer.
I tought that the moment one stops feeling remorse was the "black line", the "Moral Event Horizon". I was wrong. It happens. Thanks everyone for the discussion.

Glad to help. Although a great deal of us have been under the impression that you were asking in an already Evil person started feeling remorse if they still counted as Evil.