PDA

View Full Version : Thinking Evil = Being Evil?



Cheesegear
2008-05-16, 09:29 PM
If a character thinks about slow-roasting babies over a spit, or murdering a wagonload of people who 'annoy' him, or any other 'evil' act, but doesn't actually carry out said plan for any reason (besides 'it is wrong'); Fear of reprisal, lack of resources, etc.
Basically, the character would commit said act if he could.

Does he or she still count as 'Evil' despite not having actually done anything?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 09:31 PM
Nope, if he or she corrects him or herself for thinking such things, or realizes it's just the stress of the moment and he or she doesn't really mean it.

Now, if you the character doesn't do it because, for whatever reason, it can't now, it's full weight evil.

Hadrian_Emrys
2008-05-16, 09:33 PM
I'm totally thinking about baby back ribs, Fat Bastard style, SO HARD right now. That must mean I'm the anti-Pelor. Sign me up for Vile feats. Woo. :smalltongue:

Xefas
2008-05-16, 09:45 PM
Nope, if he or she corrects him or herself for thinking such things, or realizes it's just the stress of the moment and he or she doesn't really mean it.

Now, if you the character doesn't do it because, for whatever reason, it can't now, it's full weight evil.

I don't think an evil act should really count until it's an "act" and not just a "thought".

If an Archon constantly wants to do evil and thinks about doing evil, but doesn't because he knows he's in the middle of Celestia and if he does so, then he'll get the soul kicked out of him, then after a few hundred years of this, is killed in some decidedly neutral manner (maybe a big celestial crate fell on him), does his essence get sent to the Lower Planes?

I mean, he never technically "did" anything wrong. He's just as perfectly blameless as the next Archon when you look at his multi-century career of doing good.

Does it really matter that he's actually a psychopathic sadist on the inside?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 09:46 PM
I'm totally thinking about baby back ribs, Fat Bastard style, SO HARD right now. That must mean I'm the anti-Pelor. Sign me up for Vile feats. Woo. :smalltongue:

Nah, that's just a low Will save against Suggestion type effects. :smalltongue:

Xefas: Yes, because give him the chance, and he'll show the true colours. Evil goes down, hard, that's the whole point of the aligned planes.

Hadrian_Emrys
2008-05-16, 09:50 PM
Nah, that's just a low Will save against Suggestion type effects. :smalltongue:

Xefas: Yes, because give him the chance, and he'll show the true colours. Evil goes down, hard, that's the whole point of the aligned planes.

What twisted monkey would Suggest baby back ribs?

Mewtarthio
2008-05-16, 09:51 PM
Nope, if he or she corrects him or herself for thinking such things, or realizes it's just the stress of the moment and he or she doesn't really mean it.

The OP mentioned any reason besides deciding it was morally wrong (ie a practical reason: "I couldn't pull it off"). In that case, odds are you're doing plenty of other Evil actions, since if you're the kind of person who'd arrange a pogrom of every phone solicitor who's ever interrupted your bathtime then you're probably the kind of person who'd do miscellaneous small acts of vengeance over imagined slights (say, backstabbing a co-worker who wears too much cologne).

If, on the other hand, you're contemplating acts of evil without having much context beyond the particular act (say, you've got some bizarre baby-eating fetish, but wish nobody else any ill so long as you can eat some babies), then I'd say you're not Evil, because you've never had the opportunity to truly test whether or not you'd actually go through with said act. Maybe the baby-eating fantasies are just fantasies, and if you were ever presented with a baby that nobody would miss, then you wouldn't really go through with it.

Rutee
2008-05-16, 09:53 PM
The OP mentioned any reason besides deciding it was morally wrong (ie a practical reason: "I couldn't pull it off"). In that case, odds are you're doing plenty of other Evil actions, since if you're the kind of person who'd arrange a pogrom of every phone solicitor who's ever interrupted your bathtime then you're probably the kind of person who'd do miscellaneous small acts of vengeance over imagined slights (say, backstabbing a co-worker who wears too much cologne).

I despise you. You just wasted a good mouthful of soda :smallbiggrin:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 09:55 PM
Win. This is definetely going into my Prog Rock addicted BBEG.


What twisted monkey would Suggest baby back ribs?

Cheesegear, and you took it in subconsciously?

Also, no monkeys. Nobody steals the job from the Tarantela Dancing Monkey!

Swordguy
2008-05-16, 09:58 PM
It depends on whether you believe in thought crime or not.

To put it in a horribly blunt, real-world example: Is someone who fantasises about having sex with children, but never does so for fear of being caught, an evil person?

Even if nobody is ever hurt, it's still illegal in the US and the vast majority of other places (granted, that's different than "good" and "evil", but I daresay a lot of people will respond with "Of course that person's evil! He/she is having fantasies of child molestation! He/She HAS to be evil!").

Now, what about if it's your next-door neighbor?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 10:01 PM
It depends on whether you believe in thought crime or not.

To put it in a horribly blunt, real-world example: Is someone who fantasises about having sex with children, but never does so for fear of being caught, an evil person?

Even if nobody is ever hurt, it's still illegal in the US and the vast majority of other places (granted, that's different than "good" and "evil", but I daresay a lot of people will respond with "Of course that person's evil! He/she is having fantasies of child molestation! He/She HAS to be evil!").

No, the problem there is not the molestation itself. It's the act of taking out the decision from someone's hands, since a child, except a few prodigy's, lack the wisdom to make that decision. The molestation is merely the byproduct of taking away someone's power to decide their own destiny from them. THAT is the evil act.

Swordguy
2008-05-16, 10:05 PM
No, the problem there is not the molestation itself. It's the act of taking out the decision from someone's hands, since a child, except a few prodigy's, lack the wisdom to make that decision. The molestation is merely the byproduct of taking away someone's power to decide their own destiny from them. THAT is the evil act.

So...I didn't get the answer. Is that person evil or not for thinking and fantasising about it, but never actually taking the action?

Xefas
2008-05-16, 10:05 PM
Xefas: Yes, because give him the chance, and he'll show the true colours. Evil goes down, hard, that's the whole point of the aligned planes.

To make a metaphor:

I think of learning to play a musical instrument. I fantasize about composing a great musical wonder for the ages. I spend every waking moment imaging every detail of my great feats of musical talent. Except, I've never actually had the opportunity to learn to do any of those things. Maybe my family pressured me into being a doctor and I've been swamped with medical work my entire life. Instead of inspiring via song, I save the dieing by removing foreign objects from their more important organs.

I die.

Do I go to the afterlife for Musicians or Doctors?

EvilElitest
2008-05-16, 10:08 PM
If a character thinks about slow-roasting babies over a spit, or murdering a wagonload of people who 'annoy' him, or any other 'evil' act, but doesn't actually carry out said plan for any reason (besides 'it is wrong'); Fear of reprisal, lack of resources, etc.
Basically, the character would commit said act if he could.

Does he or she still count as 'Evil' despite not having actually done anything?

While he would be close he wouldn't be evil. He might be neutral, and might not be good, but if he didn't actually do anything evil he wouldn't become evil

Now intent comes into the picture, and this is really one of the few cases where it is more important than action. For example, a good person could not do evil as well, but wouldn't' do it for moral reasons. If they guy only didn't kill people because of fear i'd say he would be neutral. However if he simply thought a lot about murderering and killing people, but always with held himself, he could very well be good
from
EE

Stiz
2008-05-16, 10:08 PM
I think the true test comes when they could get away with the evil act. If they still dont do the evil act when their are no repercutions..... then they arent evil.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 10:11 PM
So...I didn't get the answer. Is that person evil or not for thinking and fantasising about it, but never actually taking the action?

No. By default, at least. The sex with the kids is a cultural thing. If the guy forced them or had sex with a child who is not wise or intelligent enought to choose for him or herself, THEN it is evil and not just inapropriate to X culture.

Xefas: If we talk about perfect paradise, you get your necessary skill to rock it out AND still are a good doctor.

If we talk about choose, well, you choose.

If we talk about the 72 virgin paradise, you're screwed.

Mewtarthio
2008-05-16, 10:13 PM
I think the true test comes when they could get away with the evil act. If they still dont do the evil act when their are no repercutions..... then they arent evil.

Thank you. That's exactly what I said, only more succinct. People can fantasize about all sorts of things, but wanting to do something and actually going through with it are two very different things.

Swordguy
2008-05-16, 10:14 PM
No. By default, at least. The sex with the kids is a cultural thing. If the guy forced them or had sex with a child who is not wise or intelligent enought to choose for him or herself, THEN it is evil and not just inapropriate to X culture.



OK. That's what I thought - but wasn't sure. So the guy thinking about it and not doing it isn't evil regardless.

EvilElitest
2008-05-16, 10:15 PM
No. By default, at least. The sex with the kids is a cultural thing. If the guy forced them or had sex with a child who is not wise or intelligent enought to choose for him or herself, THEN it is evil and not just inapropriate to X culture.

Actually i think Pedophilia is actually evil in BOVD, not sure through. In real life i know that most full blow Pedophilia have mental problems but how young are we talking here
from
Ee

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 10:22 PM
EE: I was answering thinking of the philosophical implications. D&D had nothing to do witht he answer.

Swordguy: Exactly. The action itself, unlike murder, or thinking of it and not doing it because you can't, is not evil, the means taken for it are.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 10:24 PM
Actually i think Pedophilia is actually evil in BOVD, not sure through. In real life i know that most full blow Pedophilia have mental problems but how young are we talking here
from
Ee

How young is not the matter. The matter is if the child has reached enough maturity to take the decision for itself. It could be a three year old, could be a sixteen year old.

Of course, this is based on the axiom that the pedophile is NOT mentally disturbed. Else, it all falls to pieces.

EvilElitest
2008-05-16, 10:27 PM
How young is not the matter. The matter is if the child has reached enough maturity to take the decision for itself. It could be a three year old, could be a sixteen year old.

Of course, this is based on the axiom that the pedophile is NOT mentally disturbed. Else, it all falls to pieces.

1) However consent i think can't come about until later age
2) Also in BoVD i know that certain rapists suffer from mental illness and are still evil, so i think the argument does fall to pieces

Rather morbid subject
from
EE

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 10:34 PM
Nope, Age of consent is just a law imposed by governments. What I'm talking about is the mental and emotional maturity needed to take such an important decision. If you lack THAT, you wait for it. If you have it, you're free to go buck wild, law be damned.

And yeah, a rapist has an illness. All of my argument stems from imagining a normal guy, who diplomatically asks a child for sex and explains why and what the child stands to gain from it. In short, all my idea is hypothetical, 'cause in RL, NOBODY takes this approach.


And yeah, it's morbid, but enlightening.

Talyn
2008-05-16, 10:37 PM
I think that the fantasizing question is missing the point slightly. I mean, let's say that I fantasize about pitching my boss off a cliff. It's mean, but therapeutic... but just because I have these fantasies doesn't mean that if my boss and I are on the edge of a mountain and nobody else is around (which means I could, conceivably, "get away with it") I am going to push.

Why? Because it would be wrong. That's the difference here - the OP posited that the only reason that a person failed to do evil was fear of temporal retribution. (Interesting side note: fear of divine retribution, either before or after death, however, seems to be a good enough reason according to most real-world and D&D religions for a person to qualify as "good.")

Hectonkhyres
2008-05-16, 10:37 PM
As long as somebody isn't going to translate their thoughts into actions, I don't care in the least what said thoughts happen to be. I personally have enough vile thoughts to have the tenth circle of hell constructed in my honor. I'm literally betting my afterlife on the belief that actions weigh heavier than fantasy.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 10:39 PM
Funny, I'm betting my afterlife on just confusing the hell out of anything bad that comes my way. It's the reason I'm making the Dance of the Tarantela Dancing Monkey. And using dozens of wisecracks and Ice Cream Koans a day.

I have the feeling I'm distinctly chaotGIANTFROG!

FMArthur
2008-05-16, 10:41 PM
1) However consent i think can't come about until later age
2) Also in BoVD i know that certain rapists suffer from mental illness and are still evil, so i think the argument does fall to pieces

Rather morbid subject
from
EE

That "mental illness" being that they're an evil rapist. :smalltongue:

Xefas
2008-05-16, 10:41 PM
Xefas: If we talk about perfect paradise, you get your necessary skill to rock it out AND still are a good doctor.

If we talk about choose, well, you choose.

If we talk about the 72 virgin paradise, you're screwed.

For the purposes of this metaphor, there are only two afterlives: Musician and Doctor. Everyone else is reincarnated until they become one of these professions. No one gets any choice in the matter.

Which one do I go to?

(Then replace all musical reference with "Evil" and all medical references to "Good" and you see my point. Just because you think Evil doesn't make you Evil just like thinking of playing Music doesn't make you a Musician.

If you do Good, you're Good. If you Doctor people, you're a Doctor.)

Jayngfet
2008-05-16, 10:43 PM
Depends on how they act in minor ways, I won't fall a paladin for killing a dangerous enimy if he's disarmed and acting like a coward and begging, but if he laughs while swinging his +2 greatsword then I fall him and give him a low XP high risk redemption.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-16, 10:44 PM
What is your heart's true desire? If they're true heavens, you can choose when you have such a dilemma and take what you like most, and if they're not, you tear 'em down. THAT is the answer to the problem.

And for reference, it was the chicken, because, starting from bacteria or paramecium, evolution gets you a chicken before a chicken egg.

Cheesegear
2008-05-16, 10:50 PM
So, I'm going to rule that 'would if I could' counts as Evil?

Xefas
2008-05-16, 10:51 PM
What is your heart's true desire? If they're true heavens, you can choose when you have such a dilemma and take what you like most, and if they're not, you tear 'em down. THAT is the answer to the problem.

And for reference, it was the chicken, because, starting from bacteria or paramecium, evolution gets you a chicken before a chicken egg.

They aren't heavens. They aren't based around happiness. They're two big rooms with one marked "Doctor" and one "Musician" like the D&D afterlives.

There's no choice, no dilemma, no nothing. There's just "Are you, objectively, a Doctor or a Musician?" just like the Great Wheel asks "Are you, objectively, Good or Evil?".

Mewtarthio
2008-05-16, 10:53 PM
I think that the fantasizing question is missing the point slightly. I mean, let's say that I fantasize about pitching my boss off a cliff. It's mean, but therapeutic... but just because I have these fantasies doesn't mean that if my boss and I are on the edge of a mountain and nobody else is around (which means I could, conceivably, "get away with it") I am going to push.

Perhaps "fantasy" was the wrong word. What I meant was, you could genuinely want to perform an action, but that doesn't mean you'd actually do it given the chance. In general, people fantasize about killing their bosses because their bosses have annoyed them for some reason; they do not, however, actually want to kill their bosses. Let's say that you actually do hate your boss enough to want him dead. Maybe he's exploited a loophole in the employee contract to murder your father and sleep with your wife, or maybe you're just really touchy about all the meetings he calls. You actually lay out plans to kill him, but discard every one as impossible. This still does not necessarily mean that you actually would kill him if you found yourself alone with him a hundred miles away from civilization.

Hectonkhyres
2008-05-16, 11:03 PM
Funny, I'm betting my afterlife on just confusing the hell out of anything bad that comes my way. It's the reason I'm making the Dance of the Tarantela Dancing Monkey. And using dozens of wisecracks and Ice Cream Koans a day.

I have the feeling I'm distinctly chaotGIANTFROG!
No doubt your hell would be a perfectly white room containing only a moose chewing walnuts.

Crow
2008-05-16, 11:21 PM
Anyone here remember the Twilight Zone where the guy can hear everybody's thoughts for a day? Great episode.

The guy "overhears" another employee at the bank he works at, plotting to rob the vault and flee to the carribbean(?). So he makes a big deal about it and tries to catch the guy in the act, but when they confront the guy, he hasn't stolen any money. The guy then explains that he thinks about robbing the vault every day, but he would never actually do it.

Swordguy
2008-05-16, 11:46 PM
Anyone here remember the Twilight Zone where the guy can hear everybody's thoughts for a day? Great episode.

The guy "overhears" another employee at the bank he works at, plotting to rob the vault and flee to the carribbean(?). So he makes a big deal about it and tries to catch the guy in the act, but when they confront the guy, he hasn't stolen any money. The guy then explains that he thinks about robbing the vault every day, but he would never actually do it.

Oooo! NICE reference, and absolutely germane.

Waspinator
2008-05-16, 11:51 PM
To make a metaphor:

I think of learning to play a musical instrument. I fantasize about composing a great musical wonder for the ages. I spend every waking moment imaging every detail of my great feats of musical talent. Except, I've never actually had the opportunity to learn to do any of those things. Maybe my family pressured me into being a doctor and I've been swamped with medical work my entire life. Instead of inspiring via song, I save the dieing by removing foreign objects from their more important organs.

I die.

Do I go to the afterlife for Musicians or Doctors?
Well, it depends. How much do you look like Christopher Eccleston?

bosssmiley
2008-05-17, 06:09 AM
That must mean I'm the anti-Pelor. :smalltongue:

So...you're good then? After all: Pelor is evil (http://forum.zaister.de/viewtopic.php?id=5). :smallwink:

Evil in the D&D world is a case of whatever the GM decides. Generally though, evil inheres in actions, rather than in thoughts (psions excepted :smallamused: ). In D&D world you can fantasise about stomping babies, but so long as you don't act on these urges you count as alignment Neutral (Evil), rather than as outright Evil. A paladin might counsel you to seek help for the bad thoughts, but he won't hunt you down and smite you until the clogdancing on the newborns actually begins.

Xuincherguixe
2008-05-17, 06:35 AM
Depends on the DM, and how much sense their world makes.

Tengu
2008-05-17, 06:57 AM
Actually i think Pedophilia is actually evil in BOVD, not sure through. In real life i know that most full blow Pedophilia have mental problems but how young are we talking here
from
Ee

If pedophilia is more evil than murder, than Socrates was a worse man than Jack the Ripper.

Anyway, to answer the original question, I think the same way some people already did - if it's his molarity that stops him from performing these evil deeds in the end, than he's not evil, but if he doesn't do them because of the circumstances, but would if they were different, than he is definitely evil.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-17, 08:14 AM
What twisted monkey would Suggest baby back ribs?

The evil monkey named Chilli's. They sing about baby back ribs... barbecue sauce.

martyboy74
2008-05-17, 08:26 AM
...if it's his molarity that stops him from performing these evil deeds in the end...

How many moles of evil thoughts does it take to dilute one mole of good actions?

Demented
2008-05-17, 04:29 PM
To make a metaphor:

I think of learning to play a musical instrument. I fantasize about composing a great musical wonder for the ages. I spend every waking moment imaging every detail of my great feats of musical talent. Except, I've never actually had the opportunity to learn to do any of those things. Maybe my family pressured me into being a doctor and I've been swamped with medical work my entire life. Instead of inspiring via song, I save the dieing by removing foreign objects from their more important organs.

I die.

Do I go to the afterlife for Musicians or Doctors?

Both. After all, you manage to save lives while wholly distracted by the composition of your 8th symphony. That's raw talent in both directions.

Or, alternately, just the musician's afterlife. Then again, I see musical whimsy as an elemental force of one's persona, rather than a career choice, and in the case of your character this seems similarly true. After all, if it were merely a career choice, your character wouldn't be thinking about music in the first place!

Curmudgeon
2008-05-18, 04:30 AM
Thoughts are fleeting. If thoughts determined alignment, almost everybody would register as neutral because almost all the time you're thinking about neutral things. There's no special alignment meaning of considering your sore feet, or wondering how long it's going to take to get to your destination, or whether the water in your flask is going to last until you get there, or if you'll have a soft place to bed down so that you can get a good night's rest.

Only actions with moral import matter. If thoughts determined alignment, just the intellectual act of considering evil actions would make you evil. It's not what you think about; it's merely what you do, or refrain from doing, that determines good/evil or chaotic/lawful alignment.

Learnedguy
2008-05-18, 02:05 PM
Nah. At worst it would put you at neutral, as thinking evil makes you unable to do good.

A part of being evil is having the balls to do it if you have the opportunity (no point in being stupid).

Nemoricus
2008-05-18, 02:33 PM
How many moles of evil thoughts does it take to dilute one mole of good actions?

*laughs* That's good.

Anyway, thinking evil is not evil in and of itself. If it's a passing thought, then I'd discount it. If it's more serious, then I'd consider what's stopping them from doing it. If it's morality, then it's still not evil. If it's a practical reason, then it depends on circumstances. If it's simply the law, that's an ethics question, and is Law vs Chaos. However, I'd mostly consider evil thoughts to be neutral, and reserve evil for actions. Even a Paladin will occasionally have the urge to strangle someone for one reason or another.

Thoughts don't weigh enough in my book to make me take action. I'd not make a Paladin fall for an evil thought.

In any case, this assumes that they let you in on their thought processes. I can't read minds, and I assume most of the rest of the population can't either.

Quincunx
2008-05-18, 02:51 PM
I second Learnedguy, both on having magically scanned alignment being one step away from the train of thought and on reckless courage being necessary to the chaotic/neutral evil persona. We people who are trying to think of solutions to the Great Questions, instead of consulting the external D&D deity, should treat our minds with the one-step alignment reverence that would be due to an external D&D deity. As for Lawful Evil, it doesn't require much exposure to warp the letter of the law away from its intent, thus introducing evil to it.

Nemoricus
2008-05-18, 02:53 PM
Quite true on the Law. Lawful Evil characters do love twisting it. I was thinking in terms of whether or not the law directly stops a character from taking their desired action.

Uncle Festy
2008-05-18, 02:56 PM
In that case, odds are you're doing plenty of other Evil actions, since if you're the kind of person who'd arrange a pogrom of every phone solicitor who's ever interrupted your bathtime then you're probably the kind of person who'd do miscellaneous small acts of vengeance over imagined slights (say, backstabbing a co-worker who wears too much cologne).

Can I add that to my list of potential QotWs? (see my sig)

Tren
2008-05-18, 03:36 PM
I think most everyone's kinda ignoring the scenario laid out by the OP


but doesn't actually carry out said plan for any reason (besides 'it is wrong'); Fear of reprisal, lack of resources, etc.
Basically, the character would commit said act if he could.

If the character WOULD commit the act but CAN'T, then it's most certainly evil, though perhaps a lesser evil. Just because you are unable to kill someone but try anyway still makes it attempted murder.

JaxGaret
2008-05-18, 05:17 PM
Just to put in my two cents:

Alignment in D&D 3e is absolute, and based on actions, not thoughts.

Thinking evil things does not make you Evil, in 3e.

Drider
2008-05-18, 05:23 PM
My personal opinion is, that you would be as evil as the paladin who goes grayguard counts as "good".
grayguard, wants to do good, does non-good things.
your hypothetical guy, wants to do evil, does non-evil things.

LibraryOgre
2008-05-18, 05:28 PM
"Character is doing the right thing when no-one is watching." -J.C. Watt

Someone who is good because they fear the repercussions of being evil is neutral... they are out for themselves, but do not actively harm others in their self-centeredness. However, they'll fall evil if constraints are removed from them.

"Nearly all men can stand the test of adversity, but if you really want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

I had a character who was somewhat opposite of this. He was a human bard. To all appearances, he was a noble hero. Why did he behave this way? Because he realized that heroes got things. People liked heroes. They gave them gifts. They slept with them. They hung on their every word. He didn't do what was right and good because it was right and good, but because it was a way to become popular. His motivation for heroing was completely selfish, though its results were unselfish.

Drider
2008-05-18, 06:02 PM
I had a character who was somewhat opposite of this. He was a human bard. To all appearances, he was a noble hero. Why did he behave this way? Because he realized that heroes got things. People liked heroes. They gave them gifts. They slept with them. They hung on their every word. He didn't do what was right and good because it was right and good, but because it was a way to become popular. His motivation for heroing was completely selfish, though its results were unselfish.


Now you're just talking crazy-talk! :smallwink:...:smalltongue:

Tengu
2008-05-19, 06:08 AM
How many moles of evil thoughts does it take to dilute one mole of good actions?

Touche. Now I must count how much time would it take to perform 6.022*10^23 good deeds.

Mut
2008-05-19, 04:31 PM
In real life, good and evil are hard things to pin down -- there's an almost endless religious and philosophical debate to be had there.

In the weird world of D&D it's a little different, though, because Good and Evil are discrete alignments that you can actually test for with spells and things. So it may be ambiguous to ask whether something is a good deed, but it's not ambiguous to ask whether a person is good. It's also built into the rules that changing alignment is a big deal -- a person has a consistent alignment from day to day even if their behaviour fluctuates depending on mood, circumstance and so on. Alignment is almost as fixed a characteristic as species and gender. (Possibly more fixed in magic-heavy games...)

So, to the original question: Does sincerely wanting to do evil things make a character evil? I'm guessing that the context here is that a PC or major NPC is a Stealth Bad Guy, so if Detect Evil is being thrown around this may not be an academic question. I would say that there are two ways you can go with it:

1) Most likely, the character really is inherently evil (in the D&D sense). If he had a real chance to do something evil he would, and he'd still be the same person afterwards. Plus, as Mewtarthio pointed out, he's probably been doing all kinds of little evil things in the past.

2) More interesting: The character had base desires before but was conscious that they were wrong and didn't act on them. But one day he is presented with a golden opportunity and something just snaps -- he goes ahead and eats the baby (or whatever) and is not the same person after that. Then you can point to that event and say: this is where his alignment changed to evil. Working backwards, you can argue that the guy really was neutral to start with -- and so you can legitimately have a neutral character with evil desires. But the key for this argument to hold water is that the character has to be consciously suppressing his evil side in the beginning, and it didn't sound like that was the case in the original post.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-19, 04:33 PM
In real life, good and evil are hard things to pin down -- there's an almost endless religious and philosophical debate to be had there.

In the weird world of D&D it's a little different, though, because Good and Evil are discrete alignments that you can actually test for with spells and things. So it may be ambiguous to ask whether something is a good deed, but it's not ambiguous to ask whether a person is good. It's also built into the rules that changing alignment is a big deal -- a person has a consistent alignment from day to day even if their behaviour fluctuates depending on mood, circumstance and so on. Alignment is almost as fixed a characteristic as species and gender. (Possibly more fixed in magic-heavy games...)

So, to the original question: Does sincerely wanting to do evil things make a character evil? I'm guessing that the context here is that a PC or major NPC is a Stealth Bad Guy, so if Detect Evil is being thrown around this may not be an academic question. I would say that there are two ways you can go with it:

1) Most likely, the character really is inherently evil (in the D&D sense). If he had a real chance to do something evil he would, and he'd still be the same person afterwards. Plus, as Mewtarthio pointed out, he's probably been doing all kinds of little evil things in the past.

2) More interesting: The character had base desires before but was conscious that they were wrong and didn't act on them. But one day he is presented with a golden opportunity and something just snaps -- he goes ahead and eats the baby (or whatever) and is not the same person after that. Then you can point to that event and say: this is where his alignment changed to evil. Working backwards, you can argue that the guy really was neutral to start with -- and so you can legitimately have a neutral character with evil desires. But the key for this argument to hold water is that the character has to be consciously suppressing his evil side in the beginning, and it didn't sound like that was the case in the original post.

Actually, Good and evil are as easy to pin down in RL as in D&D. It's Ethics that are the problem, not morals.

Demented
2008-05-19, 04:56 PM
Actually, Good and evil are as easy to pin down in RL as in D&D.

Judging by the insistent nature of alignment debates, that's not saying much. :p

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-19, 05:01 PM
Though IT IS. Some things are ALWAYS bad. Murder is an evil act, as is any version of rape (Including mindrapes, which encompasses torture), for example. On the other side of the coin saving a life, even at a cost to yourself is always a good act, regardless of what kind of person you save.

Really, the biggest problem stems from what SOCIETY wants us to think is right or wrong.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-19, 05:08 PM
Good and evil are easy to pin down.

That's why opinions on them differ so vastly!

martyboy74
2008-05-19, 05:09 PM
...Murder is an evil act...

How do you define murder? Is it evil if a doctor helps a patient kill themseves painlessly if they've been living in constant pain for several years (From say, cancer. I don't care; invent your own background.)?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-19, 05:10 PM
How do you define murder? Is it evil if a doctor helps a patient kill themseves painlessly if they've been living in constant pain for several years (From say, cancer. I don't care; invent your own background.)?

Euthanasia is not murder. So it doesn't even apply.

Perhaps a better example would be killing someone you meet on the street in cold blood.

martyboy74
2008-05-19, 05:15 PM
Fair enough. What if a soldier killed one of the people of his side because they were pretending to be on the other side?

How do you define murder; knowing that will make it much easier to come up with one of these examples.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-19, 05:18 PM
What d'you mean with the soldier example? Without any more details, I'd call it stupidity for the high command not informing the grunts that no, they MUST NOT hit that guy. :smalltongue:

As for the definition, maybe a dictionary definition would do, if you can find one.

Grommen
2008-05-19, 05:30 PM
Old mad Jack went to prison here in Michigan for "helping" several cancer and other incurable illness people die. So here, apparently it is murder in the 1st degree, it is considered an evil act. I believe that we treat our dogs more humanly than our in-laws in this regard.

Then again smoking a joint will generally get you more time in prison than murder so well...These things happen.

With D&D; it's simple. You kill and eat people. You bad. You think about killing and eating people, but don't do it. Your still good. If your seeking a way to kill and eat people your still bad, cause eventually your going to get what you want. When the long arm of the law, or some evil deity gets around to reading the persons mind and tells them "Don't worry...it's ok, just one little bite.", then your old pal their will be looking at you like a meal plate.

So long story short, for now he is still "Good", just make sure that the character knows that he will get away with it and he'll flip like a switch.

On a personal note: I prefer them with a little bit of BBQ, like "Frank's Red Hot" , or "Bold and Spicy". Make of this what you wish :smallcool:

Mut
2008-05-19, 05:38 PM
In real life, good and evil are hard things to pin down -- there's an almost endless religious and philosophical debate to be had there.


Actually, Good and evil are as easy to pin down in RL as in D&D. It's Ethics that are the problem, not morals.

The reason I put that sentence in there is exactly because I didn't want to get into debating real-life good, evil, ethics and morals. :) That can go on for pages and get way off-topic. Here's a perfect example of why it gets fiddly:


... Murder is an evil act... On the other side of the coin saving a life, even at a cost to yourself is always a good act, regardless of what kind of person you save.

... which is fine until someone murders person A in order to save the life of person B.

(Just to be clear: I ain't saying that you can't have complete, self-consistent definitions of real-life good and evil. But for me at least it's a hard, hard problem, and not one that's likely to be thrashed out on this web forum.)

Rion
2008-05-20, 07:12 AM
Let's take a hypothetical situation: Man A wants to kill Man B. He plans the murder down to the last detail. On the planned day he readies himself and go out in the kitchen to get a knife, only to find out someone has stolen all his knives . No big deal he says, Man B probably have some. Man A goes to the victims house and break into the house, using a copy of the Man B's housekey, only to find out that Man B doesn't have any knives (of course Man A could kill Man B without using a knife, but let's say the only way to kill someone in this hypothetical land is to slit their throat). Since he doesn't have any way of killing Man B and can't break into any of the neighbors' houses (he only has a copy of Man B's key), he goes home.
Is Man A evil?

Tengu
2008-05-20, 09:19 AM
Of course he is. The only thing that stopped him from murdering man B were circumstances.

Rion
2008-05-20, 09:35 AM
Which is exactly what the OP asked about as far as I understood it. Just with different circumstances than in my hypothetical situation.

Ryusacerdos
2008-05-20, 02:11 PM
Murder is unjustified and premeditated homicide. If its unjustified, but not premeditated, its not murder, but some kind of homicide (accidental, by negligence, etc.), and it typically not considered evil.

Homicide in self-defense or to secure the life of another person is not murder. (I'd classify it as a neutral act)

JaxGaret
2008-05-20, 04:51 PM
Let's take a hypothetical situation: Man A wants to kill Man B. He plans the murder down to the last detail. On the planned day he readies himself and go out in the kitchen to get a knife, only to find out someone has stolen all his knives . No big deal he says, Man B probably have some. Man A goes to the victims house and break into the house, using a copy of the Man B's housekey, only to find out that Man B doesn't have any knives (of course Man A could kill Man B without using a knife, but let's say the only way to kill someone in this hypothetical land is to slit their throat). Since he doesn't have any way of killing Man B and can't break into any of the neighbors' houses (he only has a copy of Man B's key), he goes home.
Is Man A evil?

If Man A had never done anything Evil or Good in his life (in other words, he was perfectly neutral up to that point), and then did that, then no, he would not then be Evil at that point in time. If he went on to commit an Evil act, then at that later point, yes, he would be Evil, but before taking such action, no.

Only actions determine alignment in D&D.

Here's another way to look at it: take someone whose mind is constantly telling them to murder and steal from people, but they spend their entire life successfully doing Good, without ever once doing anything Evil.

Would that person then be Neutral, or Evil? No. They would be Good.

North
2008-05-20, 04:57 PM
It better not. Otherwise most everyone is pretty evil.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-20, 04:59 PM
If Man A had never done anything Evil or Good in his life (in other words, he was perfectly neutral up to that point), and then did that, then no, he would not then be Evil at that point in time. If he went on to commit an Evil act, then at that later point, yes, he would be Evil, but before taking such action, no.

Only actions determine alignment in D&D.

Here's another way to look at it: take someone whose mind is constantly telling them to murder and steal from people, but they spend their entire life successfully doing Good, without ever once doing anything Evil.

Would that person then be Neutral, or Evil? No. They would be Good.

If they fought their impulses off, they're good. If they didn't do it for fear of greater punishment, that is squarely LE. Seriously, read the alignment, because it even speaks of obeying the rules because of fear of being punished.

Rion
2008-05-20, 06:08 PM
JaxGaret: Then we disagree. Because in my opinion, while his actions may not be evil, his personality certainly is.

Pienterekaak
2008-05-21, 03:14 AM
I agree, that if you think evil, but wouldn't commit the act even under perfect circumstances, then you are not evil. Everybody has evil thoughts but the 'good' guys will not follow them.

Shademan
2008-05-21, 03:56 AM
but acts of good dosnt make you a good person. you can be a evil archvillain at heart and still feed starvning children.
well... sure you might have plan about making them your evil elite soldiers or sacrefice them to bobchtulu...
but if your plans fail and you learn that the temple to bob is no more or you suddenly cant make them troops, do you become good?

Niknokitueu
2008-05-21, 05:10 AM
I think of good and evil in the same way as brave and coward.

Brave/coward: If you charge into an affray with no regard for personal safety, you are brave.
Look at another example: You have a coward with a family. He can stop the 'bad guys' from killing his family if he charges into the affray and delays them whilst his family escapes. He is still a coward, despite doing exactly what his comrade (the brave person) is doing.

IMO Good/Evil is the same way. If you have someone that would like to do evil, but due to circumstances does not do evil, then he is still evil. If you have someone that would like to do good, but is prevented from doing so, then he is still good.

This is in contradiction with AD&D alignments. For AD&D, what you do is what you are. A good person that cannot do good will eventually become neutral (ditto evil). Evil does have an advantage, though, in that if they can justify the good/neutral acts in the service of a greater evil, the DM tends to let the 'alignment infractions' slide.

In the end, it should depend on the DM. Mine allows a lot of leeway, providing you can easily justify it. And no, genocide can never be explained as being 'for the greater good' :smallbiggrin:


And for reference, it was the chicken, because, starting from bacteria or paramecium, evolution gets you a chicken before a chicken egg.
Nope, it is the other way around.
Genetic drift means that your children are slightly different to you.
Way back in time, there would have been a proto-chicken that was not quite a chicken. Due to genetic drift, it laid an egg that was sufficiently different that it would be a 'chicken' egg.
This 'chicken' egg then grew into a chicken.

So the egg came first. :smallcool::smallbiggrin:

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

Pienterekaak
2008-05-21, 07:32 AM
off topic: i agree the egg came first for the same reasons :P

Roderick_BR
2008-05-21, 07:52 AM
So...I didn't get the answer. Is that person evil or not for thinking and fantasising about it, but never actually taking the action?
Depends. The person just wonders about it, and fantasizes on how it would be like, but would never actually do it to a real human being, or just didn't do it yet because he didn't have the opportunity, but would in a heartbeat if he knew he could get away with it?
There's the difference between a guy that says "I'll kill you for that" when his friend tells an awful joke, and the guy that says "I'll kill you for that", then proceeds to stab his friend with a knife.

How about we go further? Most RPGs have combats and rules for fighting,wounding, and death. We spend hours pretending we are killing monsters and others characters. You can play a warrior slaying a criminal with a sword. You think about doing it. Sometimes, when annoyed with something, even wonder how cool it would be to walk around with a sword killing off people you despise. Of course, you would, never in a conscient mind, harm a person that way (other than a occaional fist fight). Does it make you evil? Of course not. You are thinking about it, even play a simulation for fun, but wouldn't do it for real (unless you are a psycopath, or works as a policeman or soldier).

Now take a real life criminal. He pics a knife and thinks about killing that one guy that pissed him off. Just that, he didn't like the guy's face, and finds the way he talks annoying. He's been hounding the guy for weeks, but never got the chance to get alone with him, thus he didn't do it yet. But as soon as possible, he'll. Is he evil? Certainly.

Tengu
2008-05-21, 08:03 AM
This is in contradiction with AD&D alignments. For AD&D, what you do is what you are. A good person that cannot do good will eventually become neutral (ditto evil). Evil does have an advantage, though, in that if they can justify the good/neutral acts in the service of a greater evil, the DM tends to let the 'alignment infractions' slide.


Wow, that is so stupid. If an evil person feeds a stray kitty (because he might be a cruel serial killer and rapist, but he has a soft spot for kitties) or accidentally saves someone's life, does it count as deed shifting his alignment towards good in AD&D?

Prophaniti
2008-05-21, 11:05 AM
Real-world morals and philosophy aside... Strickly in D&D, actions determine alignment, perhaps with some slight influence based on intentions. Actions definitely make up the bulk of it, however. Therefore the person who contemplates evil but never takes any steps toward it (regardless of reason) is not evil. As soon as they begin actively pursuing evil actions, that's when the switch occurs.

Citing an earlier example: Man A is evil (in D&D) because he took action in pursuit of an evil goal. If this is the first such thing he had ever done I, as DM would begin to shift his alignment toward evil. If he continued to pursue evil but met with failure again, his alignment would still continue to shift. Finding success in such goals would mean a bigger shift. Remember, actions are what counts, and that includes actions taken toward a specific goal. If the goal is evil, it makes any efforts to reach it evil, albeit less so than the goal itself. Same if the goal is good.

Again this is all my opinion as GM in a strictly game-rules interpretation of a character or NPCs actions. That's how I would handle it.

ashmanonar
2008-05-21, 01:43 PM
Now intent comes into the picture, and this is really one of the few cases where it is more important than action. For example, a good person could not do evil as well, but wouldn't' do it for moral reasons. If they guy only didn't kill people because of fear i'd say he would be neutral. However if he simply thought a lot about murderering and killing people, but always with held himself, he could very well be good
from
EE

Now, either I'm a horrible person, or people are unacquainted with a little something I like to call reality. We ALL have these thoughts. We all think impure thoughts about other people (of the same or opposite sex, your preference), we all imagine/wish we could kill that jackass that goes 35 in a 55 zone, we all have dark thoughts that we don't dare speak out loud (look how freaking popular slasher/torture horror movies are.)

How is anybody supposed to be good if thinking about things we'd never actually do is evil?

I know the response the pastor at my church group would have, but something always seems missing from that response (that yes, we all have dark thoughts, but that in trying to control them, we're fulfilling the desire to do good.)

edit: excised some things. Inappropriate things.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-21, 01:56 PM
^: How? By fighting those thoughts away, duh. Thinking such things is not bad in and of itself, but not fighting them IS bad.

And this comes from someone who knows mentioning religion is not allowed here, m'boy.

ashmanonar
2008-05-21, 02:05 PM
^: How? By fighting those thoughts away, duh. Thinking such things is not bad in and of itself, but not fighting them IS bad.

And this comes from someone who knows mentioning religion is not allowed here, m'boy.

>.> Didn't quite mean to, it just kinda tumbled out.

As to the other thing, I guess I'm just stuck at the duality of it; thinking evil things IS bad, but in the same breath you just have to fight it. What is the message I'm supposed to take from this? Is it one or the other?

note: This may be part of the mental block I tend to put on things involving r******* and morality. Do not take this entirely seriously.

Also, Azerian: I'd appreciate it if you didn't patronize me. If you weren't intending it, I apologize, but I dislike feeling like I'm being talked down to.

Roderick_BR
2008-05-22, 02:09 AM
Wow, that is so stupid. If an evil person feeds a stray kitty (because he might be a cruel serial killer and rapist, but he has a soft spot for kitties) or accidentally saves someone's life, does it count as deed shifting his alignment towards good in AD&D?
Or a cruel space mercenary killer (and rapist in the free times), have a soft spot for space dolphins :smallbiggrin:
Funny thing, said mercenary once HAD to think about good things to make a magic sword work to destroy a monster that was about to eat him.
I don't think any of these acts made him any less the biggest damned bastart in the galaxy :smallamused:

Niknokitueu
2008-05-22, 02:40 AM
Wow, that is so stupid. If an evil person feeds a stray kitty (because he might be a cruel serial killer and rapist, but he has a soft spot for kitties) or accidentally saves someone's life, does it count as deed shifting his alignment towards good in AD&D?
Unfortunately, in D&D, yes.

The feeding a stray kitty is definitely a good act. Done for unselfish reasons. No overarcing evil intent (like taking the stray kitty and training it to become a sadistic, commoner-killing machine).
A purely generous, good deed. Damn right, it would shift him towards NG. Repeated feeding of kitties, or opening an animal shelter (etc) would eventually change his alignment.

Accidently saving someone's life is a bit more dubious. It is a good act, but would (hopefully) be lessened due to it's accidental nature (depends on the DM - mine would not change your alignment at all for accidently saving someone). Also it would presumably have happened whilst doing some evil task, so may well even help restore his alignment given earlier kitty feeding... (For example, killing a town guard in order to gain access to a keep. A town guard that was -unbeknownst to our hero- part of an extortion racket, and was going to torch someone's house later that evening. You just saved someone's life accidently whilst pursuing an evil goal... still nice and evil IMO.)

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

Cheesegear
2008-05-22, 02:43 AM
The feeding a stray kitty is definitely a good act. Done for unselfish reasons. No overarcing evil intent (like taking the stray kitty and training it to become a sadistic, commoner-killing machine).

Training your cat to kill first-level wizards is a big no-no too.

Reinboom
2008-05-22, 03:06 AM
What if the feeding kitties is an aside?
Example, of a character I actually played:
She would house and train any creature that wasn't an elf that had a slight of magical talent in for sorcery. Feed them, etc. Magic was suppressed in this campaign, so this was her way of trying to reawaken the world to it.

On the other hand, if you were an elf, you were killed. Instantly. Oh, and she would also pirate from a lot of established settlements, rich or not, that did not agree with her cause. She did a lot of evil, and killed a lot - but inevitably - most of this money went in to funding the sorcery school.

My DM just said "you're chaotic neutral", and was done with it. Though, I'm still unsure.


Now, closer to the original question at hand.
If I still played with alignments, I would rule that strong intent on acting upon an evil goal would be considered evil. Any restrictions thereof would be defined by based on how the character would act upon if those restrictions where not in place and how they would respond to the act thereafter.

An example, if there was to be no consequence in harming a specific roommate I used to share a room with, I would of probably done it. However, after, I would of most definitely regret it. My signs of evil would of only been in a moment, but in general, I believe myself to act neutral or good. Taking action to harm this roommate would've been an evil act, but it would of been my personal satisfaction upon the task to reflect it evil upon myself or not. The thought of "I feel sick for doing that.." versus "..I just got away with that.. I wonder if I could again.". Basically, how much empathy would exist in to it versus how much of a sociopath you are.

Basically, how often is the character in this mode?
Is the character a complete sociopath which sustains a fear of the repercussions and not just an empathy to the possible victims? Then evil.
If the character wishes to imbue harm but is afraid of the effects on the victims, then neutral or good.
Basically, a difference in "If I had a gun, I would shoot him. Fortunately, I don't have a gun." versus "If I had a gun, I would shoot him. I wish I had a gun."

Niknokitueu
2008-05-22, 04:09 AM
What if the feeding kitties is an aside?
Example, of a character I actually played:
She would house and train any creature that wasn't an elf that had a slight of magical talent in for sorcery. Feed them, etc. Magic was suppressed in this campaign, so this was her way of trying to reawaken the world to it.

On the other hand, if you were an elf, you were killed. Instantly. Oh, and she would also pirate from a lot of established settlements, rich or not, that did not agree with her cause. She did a lot of evil, and killed a lot - but inevitably - most of this money went in to funding the sorcery school.

My DM just said "you're chaotic neutral", and was done with it. Though, I'm still unsure.
Heh. If I were a DM I would have started you as true neutral or neutral evil.

Why kill Elves? Was it because they used a 'corrupted' version of 'normal' magic (hence an arguably good act), or because they supported the 'normal' magic that your sourcery was trying to usurp (hence almost certainly an evil act whatever the justification)?
As to law/chaos, you operated by a set of rules. They may have been your own, but anytime you start going "Train any non elf. Kill all elves" you are enacting a rigid view on the world (which does not really fit with CN, who tend to do things "because they want to", and which may well be totally different to what they did yesterday...)

So if you were doing evil deeds in the cause of good, I would have started you neutral. If you were doing evil deeds in the cause of evil, you would be evil.
If you stuck to your moral code, you would start or become lawful. If you often did things on a whim, you are acting chaotic, and would shift towards that alignment.

So depending on the world set-up, I would place you either N or E, and depending on your zeal, either L or N. In most worlds I have created (heh - I have run only 2 D&D campaigns ever!) your acts seem more or less LE to me. Congrats, you are the fantasy equivalent to an amoral lawyer :smallbiggrin:.

You think that that is bad enough, try playing a cleric. A lot of gods have goals that seem at odds with their given alignments. I have (in my time) worshipped a CN god of war that (when played according to the god's beliefs) was close to LN. I have worshipped a CG god of hunting that (when played according to the god's beliefs) was actually true N. My GM got around this by using his own version of an alignment system for clerics. If your behaviour is not in accord with the god's beliefs, you wandered away from the 'perfect belief'. Behaviour in accord with the god's beliefs pushed you towards the 'perfect belief'. Wander too far away, and you no longer get any spells...

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

nagora
2008-05-22, 05:39 AM
This is an answer based on AD&D, but I don't think the alignment system has changed much since then:

Evil can be from action or reason for action, but never from inaction. That is, there is no "thought crime". Otherwise thing's get very messy very quickly.

But, if you do good things for bad reasons - you killed an evil man because you just felt like it and not to stop them committing evil acts - then you are doing evil. Similarly, if you do evil things for good reasons - say making gypsies into a scapegoat for society's problems in order to bring the community together and prevent a civil war while slaughtering the gypsies - you are doing evil. Bascially, action and intent must both be Good for an act to be classed as better than neutral. Being evil is much easier than being good, by and large.

Evil and Good in AD&D are largely about domination. Actions which place the character in positions of domination, or put others down in order to raise the character up, are evil, those which benefit others are good. The Good-Evil axis then runs from generous and philanthropic (Good), through simple self-preservation (Neutral), to selfishness and cruelty (Evil).

The ultimate Good act is self-sacrifice to save others, the ultimate Evil act is killing others to enjoy the sensation of taking everything they have from them (Thank you, Clint Eastwood).

Thus, risking your life to kill maurading orcs in order to protect others is a Good act. Killing them in order to be treated as a hero is an Evil act, killing them because they were trying to kill you is a Neutral act. Same act, three possible alignments.

Killing elves, or any non-aligned race, because they are elves is evil unless there's a reasonable self-defense motive (say, you're a dwarf and the elves are known to be killing all dwarves on sight).

Law and Chaos are about how a person tries to go about these moral goals: do they band together with other like-minded people/creatures in an organisation or society where the individual's desires are subject to compromise (Law) or do they reserve the right to chose for themselves how to achieve what they want without recourse to others' judgements (Chaos)?

An iteresting point is that most real-world dictators are CE even when they put in place hightly lawful systems under them. Hitler, for example, did not work his way up through the ranks. He made the ranks and put himself at the top. Stalin, likewise, was hardly a team-player! Wanting to give orders, and refusing to take them except when forced, is a Chaotic Evil characteristic. Devils see strength in unity; demons see strength only in strength.

SweetRain's example is Evil: she is killing Elves for her cause - she is placing her desire to pursue her personal cause above everything that each individual elf may want (clearly, unless all the elves were suicidal) and for no apparent reason of even self-preservation. There is clearly no intent to self-sacrifice involved either. As I said above, Good never justifies Evil and no matter what she does with the cash she is still evil.

There's not enough information in the example to be sure if she's LE, NE, or CE.

Reinboom
2008-05-22, 05:49 AM
A further in depth look at why:
She was raised by drow (campaign 1) and was the only character that survived that campaign (Near TPK), she escaped to the outer world, and I got to level her twice (and adjust equipment) to fit the requirements for campaign 2, but still got to use the rest of her basically.
In the outer world, all elves were drow, no matter what they said or did.

nagora
2008-05-22, 06:12 AM
In the outer world, all elves were drow, no matter what they said or did.

Do you mean that was her perception, or that was the outer world's perception, or that all elves really were black-skined, white-haired psychopaths?

Reinboom
2008-05-22, 06:43 AM
Do you mean that was her perception, or that was the outer world's perception, or that all elves really were black-skined, white-haired psychopaths?

Her perception. Most of the elves were generally 'good' in that campaign.

nagora
2008-05-22, 06:51 AM
Her perception. Most of the elves were generally 'good' in that campaign.

In that case I'd probably have to rule as DM "evil or insane; take your pick as the player". Unless her Int was under 5 the inability to spot that these elves are nothing like drow except perhaps around the ears indicates a wilful abdication of judgement IMO. There's only so long you can hide behind "I didn't think about it" and it decreases as Int increases. Free will and all that.

If the player picked "insane" then as DM I'd be looking towards a long-term arc where that insanity started to worsen unless the player(s) took steps to fix it - ie, it's not a "get out of Hell/Hades/Abyss free card". Might be interesting.

Reinboom
2008-05-22, 06:55 AM
In that case I'd probably have to rule as DM "evil or insane; take your pick as the player". Unless her Int was under 5 the inability to spot that these elves are nothing like drow except perhaps around the ears indicates a wilful abdication of judgement IMO. There's only so long you can hide behind "I didn't think about it" and it decreases as Int increases. Free will and all that.

If the player picked "insane" then as DM I'd be looking towards a long-term arc where that insanity started to worsen unless the player(s) took steps to fix it - ie, it's not a "get out of Hell/Hades/Abyss free card". Might be interesting.

I took it closer to 'willing ignorance' (as experienced in the real world, racism, etc.), with a hint of backing "they are always trying to kill me!". Since, well, they did try to kill her, because she was a mass murderer of their kind...

nagora
2008-05-22, 07:03 AM
I took it closer to 'willing ignorance' (as experienced in the real world, racism, etc.),

Racism is exactly what I was thinking of. In RL, I hear people say "Well, it's the way they were brought up" to justify all sorts of racist and sexist views from others. Well, that's fine and all but once you're an adult you're supposed to be able to think for yourself. Willing ignorance is just a form of self-justification for any intelligent creature, and one thing alignment really never ever should care about is self-justification - otherwise everyone's "Good" from Vladd the Impaler to Herman Goering and back again!

So, Evil it is, I'm afraid.

You fiend!:smallsmile:

Quorothorn
2008-05-22, 02:23 PM
*laughs* That's good.

Anyway, thinking evil is not evil in and of itself. If it's a passing thought, then I'd discount it. If it's more serious, then I'd consider what's stopping them from doing it. If it's morality, then it's still not evil. If it's a practical reason, then it depends on circumstances. If it's simply the law, that's an ethics question, and is Law vs Chaos. However, I'd mostly consider evil thoughts to be neutral, and reserve evil for actions. Even a Paladin will occasionally have the urge to strangle someone for one reason or another.

"Don't break the Paladin code by strangling Elan, don't break the Paladin code by strangling Elan, don't break the Paladin code by strangling Elan, don't break the Paladin code by strangling Elan..."

Just as an example.

Roderick_BR
2008-05-23, 07:55 AM
The reason I put that sentence in there is exactly because I didn't want to get into debating real-life good, evil, ethics and morals. :) That can go on for pages and get way off-topic. Here's a perfect example of why it gets fiddly:



... which is fine until someone murders person A in order to save the life of person B.

(Just to be clear: I ain't saying that you can't have complete, self-consistent definitions of real-life good and evil. But for me at least it's a hard, hard problem, and not one that's likely to be thrashed out on this web forum.)


Fair enough. What if a soldier killed one of the people of his side because they were pretending to be on the other side?

How do you define murder; knowing that will make it much easier to come up with one of these examples.

Now we got to the "self-defense" part. You are killing a person not just for kicks, or for revenge, or anything. You are doing it because the other guy is trying to kill you first, and you have no other option to protect yourself. Same thing if you need to kill person A in order to save person B (think a police sniper shoting down a bank robber that is holding an hostage at gun point).

As for shoting the soldier guy, that may be tricky. When you first shoot, you think he is part of the enemy army, and that he's going to shot you. You are considered a "tool" in this case, as you was technically doing your job, and didn't knew it was a disguised ally, you are not the responsible for the death.
And while we're at it, wars are always tricky to define. Killing people to defend your country may be considered good, while killing people to further the advance of yours (be it by to take over terrain, take over resources, or getting rid of "inferior people), is considered evil. Things can get quickly out of hand, however, as wars are chaotic by nature.

Defining murder is hard, and tribunals are stuffed full of suits about if a guy killing another is murder or not.
Just this week I heard the case about some guy that was kidnapped, and he hit the captor with an axe, and I think he died. Now the kidnapped guy will be sent to trial to see if what he did was self-defense or murder.

Comparing it with D&D, if an orc warband invades the town, and the PCs kill them off, is it murder? Not in this case.
If they wander into the florest and finds an orc tribe, let's say one that is violent to outsiders but don't tend to activelly invade others towns, and the PCs decide to kill them off, is it murder? Many would agree that it is, while others will just shrug it off.

nagora
2008-05-23, 10:22 AM
Let's take a hypothetical situation: Man A wants to kill Man B. He plans the murder down to the last detail. On the planned day he readies himself and go out in the kitchen to get a knife, only to find out someone has stolen all his knives . No big deal he says, Man B probably have some. Man A goes to the victims house and break into the house, using a copy of the Man B's housekey, only to find out that Man B doesn't have any knives (of course Man A could kill Man B without using a knife, but let's say the only way to kill someone in this hypothetical land is to slit their throat). Since he doesn't have any way of killing Man B and can't break into any of the neighbors' houses (he only has a copy of Man B's key), he goes home.
Is Man A evil?

Assuming no justification for the killing, yes. There is a world of difference between not acting on a thought and simply screwing up the attempt.