Is 95-99% of the real world population Evil according to Vile Darkness standard?

[Conradine]

I quote from the Book of Vile Darkness:


Consider the paladin Zophas. When climbing to the top
of a hill of loose rocks to get away from some owlbears, he
triggers a rockslide that buries the owlbears and continues
down the hill, crushing a hut full of commoners. Is Zophas
an evil murderer who must suddenly lose his lawful good
alignment? No, although Zophas might still feel guilt and
responsibility. He might attempt to right the inadvertent
wrong as best he can.
But what if Zophas’s friend Shurrin said, “Don’t climb up
there, Zophas! You might start a rockslide that will crush the
hut!” Zophas goes anyway. Now is it evil? Probably. Zophas
was either carelessly endangering the commoners or so
overconfident of his climbing prowess that he acted out of
hubris. At this point, Zophas isn’t exactly a murderer, but he
should probably lose his paladin abilities until he receives
an atonement spell or otherwise makes amends.
If Zophas can clearly see the danger of the rockslide but
climbs up anyway because he wants to get away from the
owlbears, that’s clearly evil. In a world of black-and-white
distinctions between good and evil, killing innocents to
save yourself is an evil act. Sacrificing yourself for the
good of others is a good act. It’s a high standard, but that’s
the way it is


Now I may be wrong but I think that , finding themselves pursued by a pack of rabid owlbears, almost all human beings would frantically climb the hill even fully realizing the risk of causing a rockslide.
Does it means that, for BoVD, the vast majority of humans are Evil?

[el minster]

You're reflecting

[DeTess]

Now I may be wrong but I think that , finding themselves pursued by a pack of rabid owlbears, almost all human beings would frantically climb the hill even fully realizing the risk of causing a rockslide.
Does it means that, for BoVD, the vast majority of humans are Evil?

Nope. Taking a risk that might result in harm is not the same as actively killing someone. In your analogy, scrambling up the hill wouldn't be evil. Knee-capping someone else also scrambling up the hill so the owlbears get them and not you is. Also, your quote specifies that this is only for a black-and-white world where someone is either good or evil, and you can't be neutral. In most worlds, this assumptions just doesn't work.

[Yanagi]

I quote from the Book of Vile Darkness:




Now I may be wrong but I think that , finding themselves pursued by a pack of rabid owlbears, almost all human beings would frantically climb the hill even fully realizing the risk of causing a rockslide.
Does it means that, for BoVD, the vast majority of humans are Evil?

That passage is not assigning Zophas "Evil" as a fixed immutable trait, it is saying that in the second scenario Zophas has a degree of culpability in the harm of others...and in an RPG gameplay context where a DM has to use heuristics to make judgment calls about the moral implications of actions, his actions are to some degree in-game-terms-Evil.

In turn it does not follow that all people are "Evil" as a fixed state if one were to apply the same logic to all real people...but degree culpability is a moral and legal thing in the real world, though there is no absolute standard by which it is assessed.

The book precisely delineates the distinction of "in a world of black-and-white morality"--in philosophical terms, one with deontological ethics--where Good and Evil have no subjectivity and thus forms of contextualization and nuance that mitigate circumstances aren't present, which is a very specific constraint on what's being asserted. The standard of Good/Evil is thus not what normal people would do or what is understandable, but what a Good being like an Archon or a deity deems it...particularly since the scenario involves a paladin.

Since there is no equivalent source from which an absolute deontological ethic can emanate in reality, this is also suggestive that the book's statement simply can't apply to the real world.

[ngilop]

I fully believe that a overwhelming majority of humanity is evil (lawful evil to be precise), book of vile darkness or no.

I'm not sure how helpful my observations in the human race are in this regard though.

[Troacctid]

Isn't this the premise of The Good Place?

[Quertus]

Yes. The vast majority of humanity brought into that world would ping as evil. Much like how the vast majority of humanity is too evil for my tastes.

[johnbragg]

There is a certain grey area between "losing your paladin status" and "Evil alignment."

[Silly Name]

There is a certain grey area between "losing your paladin status" and "Evil alignment."

This.

As an addendum, there is also quite a difference between "committing an Evil act" and "being of Evil alignment". Over the course of a week or a month, most average people commit acts that would fall all over the D&D alignment spectrum - but for the vast part it's minor acts, stuff like an high school student trying to cheat on her math test (Chaotic) but then also never crossing the street if she's at a red light (Lawful), or handing some spare change to a beggar (Good) and later in the day snapping at someone and hurling verbal abuse at them (Evil).

What would determine the actual alignment of a person is their overall moral inclination, what their average attitude looks like over the course of a lifetime. And when doing this kind of evaluation, singular actions, unless of extreme magnitude, only matter when they form a pattern.

Committing a single Evil act doesn't mean you're automatically Evil. It can make a Paladin fall, but Paladins are held to an higher standard than the average person and can even fall but remain Lawful Good. Remember, the Paladin Code forbids knowingly associating with people of Evil alignment too, but that doesn't mean whoever does that is Evil.

[NichG]

I quote from the Book of Vile Darkness:

...

Now I may be wrong but I think that , finding themselves pursued by a pack of rabid owlbears, almost all human beings would frantically climb the hill even fully realizing the risk of causing a rockslide.
Does it means that, for BoVD, the vast majority of humans are Evil?

Have most humans in the real world been in the situation where they've caused the deaths of others to save themselves? If not, then all it means is that the vast majority of humans have the potential to become BoVD-evil should they be pressed into such a scenario, not that they would merit that alignment already.

If entertaining hypothetical scenarios and determining that one would take the evil route is enough to apply an Evil alignment, then I have a plotline about how philosophers are secretly the agents of the Yugoloths and trolley problems are a memetic weapon which inflicts the Evil alignment simply by virtue of thinking about the scenario.

[icefractal]

I think it's plausible, probable even, that the majority of people fall below the standard that they themselves would set for consistently 'good' behavior.

That said, the example you post isn't saying that the behavior in the example is so bad as to make someone who does it once evil, it's saying that it counts as an evil act, which Paladins can fall for even if their overall alignment remains good. It's also not clear that climbing the hill was the only way to escape the Owlbears, there may have been other options that Zophas disregarded because he was sure this one would work.

And of course, the BoVD / BoED are not good sources if you're looking for alignment that's consistent or makes sense.

[Biggus]

This.

As an addendum, there is also quite a difference between "committing an Evil act" and "being of Evil alignment". Over the course of a week or a month, most average people commit acts that would fall all over the D&D alignment spectrum - but for the vast part it's minor acts, stuff like an high school student trying to cheat on her math test (Chaotic) but then also never crossing the street if she's at a red light (Lawful), or handing some spare change to a beggar (Good) and later in the day snapping at someone and hurling verbal abuse at them (Evil).

What would determine the actual alignment of a person is their overall moral inclination, what their average attitude looks like over the course of a lifetime. And when doing this kind of evaluation, singular actions, unless of extreme magnitude, only matter when they form a pattern.

Committing a single Evil act doesn't mean you're automatically Evil. It can make a Paladin fall, but Paladins are held to an higher standard than the average person and can even fall but remain Lawful Good. Remember, the Paladin Code forbids knowingly associating with people of Evil alignment too, but that doesn't mean whoever does that is Evil.

This is pretty much exactly what I cam here to say. Committing one evil act does not make your alignment change to evil, unless it's a very extreme and deliberately malicious one, or you were already right on the neutral/evil borderline.


I fully believe that a overwhelming majority of humanity is evil (lawful evil to be precise), book of vile darkness or no.

I'm not sure how helpful my observations in the human race are in this regard though.


Yes. The vast majority of humanity brought into that world would ping as evil. Much like how the vast majority of humanity is too evil for my tastes.

What are you basing this on? As Silly Name says, while the vast majority of people habitually commit minor acts of evil they also habitually perform minor acts of goodness, so as far as I can see they mostly come out to neutral. I can see an argument for the average person being somewhat on the evil side of perfectly neutral, but not actually of evil alignment.

[Spellweaver]

I quote from the Book of Vile Darkness:




Now I may be wrong but I think that , finding themselves pursued by a pack of rabid owlbears, almost all human beings would frantically climb the hill even fully realizing the risk of causing a rockslide.
Does it means that, for BoVD, the vast majority of humans are Evil?

Well, "almost" all humans would not do that. A good number of humans would not cause harm to others "just to get away". Some would, sure.

Though keep in mind this example is the High Standard of a Paladin. The paladin faces the loss of power if they do this, but that would not be true of anyone else who was not a paladin. The 99.99% of people in the world who are not paladins have no problem.

[Eladrinblade]

{Scrubbed}

[denthor]

I remember reading somewhere that

about a 1/3 are lawful something.
1/3 are neutral something
1/3 are chaotic something

Actions are an attempt to live up to a goal.

That goal is how you are perceived.

So in my estimate more are neutral something since 5 of the point are some form of neutral.
The example of the owlbears.

The paladin is leading them away from the non combatants in the hut.(good act). The individuals in the hut get actions as well. They chose to stay rather then accept the fact they would be food if they stay. They put themselves in harms way.

Being a paladin does not give you the right to dictate others actions nor are you responsible for their poor choices.

[Biggus]

The example of the owlbears.

The paladin is leading them away from the non combatants in the hut.(good act). The individuals in the hut get actions as well. They chose to stay rather then accept the fact they would be food if they stay. They put themselves in harms way.

Being a paladin does not give you the right to dictate others actions nor are you responsible for their poor choices.

Where are you getting all this from? The original quote doesn't say that the commoners in the hut even know the owlbears are there. It doesn't say that the paladin is trying to lead them away from the hut, it says he's trying to save himself.

[Quertus]

Committing one evil act does not make your alignment change to evil

What are you basing this on? As Silly Name says, while the vast majority of people habitually commit minor acts of evil they also habitually perform minor acts of goodness, so as far as I can see they mostly come out to neutral. I can see an argument for the average person being somewhat on the evil side of perfectly neutral, but not actually of evil alignment.

Touché? "An evil act", or the capacity to commit such an evil act, does not necessarily make one evil in D&D? I may have misheard the OP?

Doesn't change that it's still "too evil for my taste", though.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Given the broad prohibition on this forum of real world religion, this is going to be impossible to discuss here.