Which of these acts are evil?

[Cyclone231]

For these examples, we're going to be using the example of "Johnny," a do-gooder who wants to do right by the world, but constantly does it ill.

Johnny captures a wanted criminal and hands her over to the lawful authorities. After the criminal's arrest, the prison guards take the opportunity to abuse and, well, do evil stuff to the criminal. Did Johnny commit an evil act by this? What if the criminal was innocent after all, though Johnny had no idea? What if Johnny had heard rumors about the prison guards being abusive monsters beforehand but did nothing about it?

Johnny meets a magical creature in the forest, and it tells him that there are some vampires hanging around, ambushing people on the road, that he ought to kill. He makes sure the vampires are really evil, and then he goes out and kills them. This process is repeated with various other villains, and he is then told that a trade caravan is, in fact, wholly populated by evil phasms carrying a nasty artifact. He kills them, and brings it back to the magical creature so that it can be destroyed. However, unlike the other monsters, these "phasms" were really knights and sorcerers carrying a powerful artifact for good. Did Johnny commit an evil act by trusting the creature and killing those people? What if they had told him who they really were, but he didn't believe them?

Johnny is infected with lycanthropy. He was in a fight with a werewolf and infected. However, he doesn't realize it, and thus at the next full moon goes wild and kills a lot of people. Did he commit an evil act by not researching the effect of a werewolf's bite? What if he had found out what it did, locked himself up, but not well enough? If he didn't commit an evil act by not realizing what the bite did, how many times can he transform before it becomes an evil act, assuming he fails his Wisdom check to figure it out every time?

[Tengu_temp]

What if Johnny had heard rumors about the prison guards being abusive monsters beforehand but did nothing about it?

What if they had told him who they really were, but he didn't believe them?


These two examples are evil acts. The others aren't.

[Townopolis]

These two examples are evil acts. The others aren't.

Pretty much what Tengu said.

[Drakefall]

These two examples are evil acts. The others aren't.


Agreed. Though the first one could be debatable. If Johnny's only options after capturing the villain were kill him, set him free or hand him over to the guards then there really isn't a good solution.:smallconfused:

[snoopy13a]

So if you hear rumors about abusive guards then no one should go to prison at all?

The hero doesn't have a responsiblity to monitor the prison system. Anyway, if the hero did investigate, the guards would be on their best behavior and interviewing the inmates would go nowhere as they are untrustworthy criminals.

[Starbuck_II]

Johnny captures a wanted criminal and hands her over to the lawful authorities. After the criminal's arrest, the prison guards take the opportunity to abuse and, well, do evil stuff to the criminal. Did Johnny commit an evil act by this?

Lawful Neutral act (meaning a Lawful action with neutral for good/evil axis part).
He just helped follow the authorities rules/wishes (btw, it doesn't matter if Authorities are lawful here).

He did not do a good act or evil by turning criminals over. Once he turns them over his hands are clean.



What if the criminal was innocent after all, though Johnny had no idea?

Doesn't matter as he is just turning them over: now if Johnny knew he was innocent then evil act. Why would a good guy turn over a innocent man? That would be messed up.


What if Johnny had heard rumors about the prison guards being abusive monsters beforehand but did nothing about it?

Still lawful neutral. But I'd say he is leaning more neutral than good.



Johnny meets a magical creature in the forest, and it tells him that there are some vampires hanging around, ambushing people on the road, that he ought to kill. He makes sure the vampires are really evil, and then he goes out and kills them. This process is repeated with various other villains, and he is then told that a trade caravan is, in fact, wholly populated by evil phasms carrying a nasty artifact. He kills them, and brings it back to the magical creature so that it can be destroyed. However, unlike the other monsters, these "phasms" were really knights and sorcerers carrying a powerful artifact for good. Did Johnny commit an evil act by trusting the creature and killing those people? What if they had told him who they really were, but he didn't believe them?

Yes. Killing something just because someone said it was evil: isn't good evidence. Neutral at best.
If Johnny had detected the villians himself (detect evil as example) then not evil.

If they told him they weren't evil (they did'nt detect evil) and they did nothing evil then killing them is evil.


Johnny is infected with lycanthropy. He was in a fight with a werewolf and infected. However, he doesn't realize it, and thus at the next full moon goes wild and kills a lot of people. Did he commit an evil act by not researching the effect of a werewolf's bite?

No, not researching isn't evil.


What if he had found out what it did, locked himself up, but not well enough?

It is like order of the stick says, "What you don't realize is that trying to do good even in failure matter alot."
This was said to Roy in Celestria.

He tried so not evil.


If he didn't commit an evil act by not realizing what the bite did, how many times can he transform before it becomes an evil act, assuming he fails his Wisdom check to figure it out every time?

Transforming is never a evil act. Biting others is but non-paladins won't turn evil because they have no control while in were-form.


However, transforming temporaily turns your alignment evil: thus a Paladin be unable to use his powers while in werewolf form because his alignment would be evil.
Sadly, He might fall because he technically commited a evil act (bitting others) even if he did not have control.

However, as this was not a willful act, he can get Atonement spell without cost.

Either way, once you turn back alignment reshifts back to original alignment (in Johnnies case Good).

[Texas Jedi]

Like Tengu said before me. If Johnny knew the guards are abusing the people in the jail beforehand and turned the "criminal" (might have been innocent) over to them anyways it is an evil act.

I would clarify it as he must know that they abuse the criminals beforehand. I don't think a simple rumor is enough to call him evil. I hear rumors all day, I must research them to find out if they are true first.

I will agree with Tengu on the second option for the most part. The characters are not all knowing even if the player is. The character is limited by his stats, you can't have a person with 8 int suddenly acting like Sherlock Holmes and figuring it all out. I differ only on the fact that Johnny didn't try to make sure that what the caravan people said was true. If he did find out that they were good and killed them anyway then that is an evil act. If for all he knew they were evil and he killed them I don't think that would be an evil act it would be neutral at best. If it was an evil act then I would have all of my villians lie about being cursed unicorns that need to have the curse lifted. My players would be screwed if they killed them on the off chance that they could be telling the truth (unless they passed their bluff check). I hope my point is coming across here.

I know in the real world ignorance of the law is not a defense but in DnD it isn't the real world.



Johnny is infected with lycanthropy. He was in a fight with a werewolf and infected. However, he doesn't realize it, and thus at the next full moon goes wild and kills a lot of people. Did he commit an evil act by not researching the effect of a werewolf's bite? What if he had found out what it did, locked himself up, but not well enough? If he didn't commit an evil act by not realizing what the bite did, how many times can he transform before it becomes an evil act, assuming he fails his Wisdom check to figure it out every time?

The bolded part is the main point I am going to cover. If he did know about the bite and did nothing then that is an evil act. By trying to limit his destructiveness he is doing a good act it might fail but at least he tried. What if Johnny didn't know it was a werewolf (what if it was in its wolf's form) and he thought it was a just a dire wolf, or a worg.

Now if he knew he had lycanthropy and started biting people to just get them to be infected that would be evil.

[mangosta71]

For these examples, we're going to be using the example of "Johnny," a do-gooder who wants to do right by the world, but constantly does it ill.

Johnny captures a wanted criminal and hands her over to the lawful authorities. After the criminal's arrest, the prison guards take the opportunity to abuse and, well, do evil stuff to the criminal. Did Johnny commit an evil act by this? What if the criminal was innocent after all, though Johnny had no idea? What if Johnny had heard rumors about the prison guards being abusive monsters beforehand but did nothing about it?

Handing a criminal over to the authorities is neither good nor evil. It is lawful. A good character would probably investigate rumors of prisoners being maltreated, and possibly go through some steps to ensure that the criminal is in fact guilty before turning him over even without such rumors.


Johnny meets a magical creature in the forest, and it tells him that there are some vampires hanging around, ambushing people on the road, that he ought to kill. He makes sure the vampires are really evil, and then he goes out and kills them. This process is repeated with various other villains, and he is then told that a trade caravan is, in fact, wholly populated by evil phasms carrying a nasty artifact. He kills them, and brings it back to the magical creature so that it can be destroyed. However, unlike the other monsters, these "phasms" were really knights and sorcerers carrying a powerful artifact for good. Did Johnny commit an evil act by trusting the creature and killing those people? What if they had told him who they really were, but he didn't believe them?

This is a case in which Johnny is at fault for assuming that the latest target was evil just because all of the previous targets were. Going in and killing them all is somewhat evil. And if they claimed before his attack to be agents of good, he should have given them an opportunity to prove themselves as such, making killing them all significantly more evil.


Johnny is infected with lycanthropy. He was in a fight with a werewolf and infected. However, he doesn't realize it, and thus at the next full moon goes wild and kills a lot of people. Did he commit an evil act by not researching the effect of a werewolf's bite? What if he had found out what it did, locked himself up, but not well enough? If he didn't commit an evil act by not realizing what the bite did, how many times can he transform before it becomes an evil act, assuming he fails his Wisdom check to figure it out every time?

Did the character know that he was fighting a werewolf? Remember, our characters don't know everything we do (and vice-versa). If he knew that he was infected, the attempt to isolate himself is a good act. However, if he fails his wisdom check, he loses control completely (see insanity as a legal defense). If he can't be held accountable for his actions while he is transformed, do they affect his alignment? I would say no, especially if he is unaware of his actions as well.

[Hoplite]

Johnny captures a wanted criminal and hands her over to the lawful authorities. After the criminal's arrest, the prison guards take the opportunity to abuse and, well, do evil stuff to the criminal.

It depends on the setting, but if the government is mostly LG or at least seems to be LG and the character had no idea that something like that would happen to him that it is not evil.


What if the criminal was innocent after all, though Johnny had no idea?

If that is true than the justice system of that particulary country doesn't work well. These things happen and it is the job of any LG person to help justice do what is just and protect the innocent, but you can't do something evil if you don't know about it. Giving someone something to drink and accidentally poisoning him/her is not evil, although it should be avoidable.


What if Johnny had heard rumors about the prison guards being abusive monsters beforehand but did nothing about it?

Well it completely depends on the motives, but I would call this evil.


Johnny meets a magical creature in the forest, and it tells him that there are some vampires hanging around, ambushing people on the road, that he ought to kill. He makes sure the vampires are really evil, and then he goes out and kills them. This process is repeated with various other villains, and he is then told that a trade caravan is, in fact, wholly populated by evil phasms carrying a nasty artifact. He kills them, and brings it back to the magical creature so that it can be destroyed. However, unlike the other monsters, these "phasms" were really knights and sorcerers carrying a powerful artifact for good. Did Johnny commit an evil act by trusting the creature and killing those people?

No, Johnny isn't evil, but rather foolish and naive.


What if they had told him who they really were, but he didn't believe them?


Again, this is not evil, but more "misguided". He just isn't well enough informed as he trusts unreliable sources.


Johnny is infected with lycanthropy. He was in a fight with a werewolf and infected. However, he doesn't realize it, and thus at the next full moon goes wild and kills a lot of people. Did he commit an evil act by not researching the effect of a werewolf's bite?

No, ignorance is stupid and can certainly be seen as unethical, but I wouldn't see it as evil as he doesn't knowingly caused harm to anyone and isn't indifferent for the suffering of others, he just doesn't know he is causing suffering.


What if he had found out what it did, locked himself up, but not well enough?

He would be a rather tragic LG figure, trying to protect others from himself but failing. The werewolf he turn into could be considered evil, but not he.


If he didn't commit an evil act by not realizing what the bite did, how many times can he transform before it becomes an evil act, assuming he fails his Wisdom check to figure it out every time?

Indefinitely. Failing to defend yourself from evil is not evil. It could be considered a sign of weakness, but not evil. You just aren't strong enough.

[Wulfram]

For these examples, we're going to be using the example of "Johnny," a do-gooder who wants to do right by the world, but constantly does it ill.

Johnny captures a wanted criminal and hands her over to the lawful authorities. After the criminal's arrest, the prison guards take the opportunity to abuse and, well, do evil stuff to the criminal. Did Johnny commit an evil act by this? What if the criminal was innocent after all, though Johnny had no idea? What if Johnny had heard rumors about the prison guards being abusive monsters beforehand but did nothing about it?

The first are probably not evil, given lack of knowledge. You can't do evil by making a mistake.

For the last, more details are required. What is the crime, and what are the alternatives to handing him over to the authorities? How credible are the rumours?

Cutesy Ragamuffin the pickpocket and stealer of bread to feed her orphaned siblings, who'll mend his ways with a bit of help and a good rolemodel, probably shouldn't be handed over to such dodgy authorities. Killemall Stabalot the Serial Killer probably should, if it's the only way to stop him from continuing to commit crimes.


Johnny meets a magical creature in the forest, and it tells him that there are some vampires hanging around, ambushing people on the road, that he ought to kill. He makes sure the vampires are really evil, and then he goes out and kills them. This process is repeated with various other villains, and he is then told that a trade caravan is, in fact, wholly populated by evil phasms carrying a nasty artifact. He kills them, and brings it back to the magical creature so that it can be destroyed. However, unlike the other monsters, these "phasms" were really knights and sorcerers carrying a powerful artifact for good. Did Johnny commit an evil act by trusting the creature and killing those people? What if they had told him who they really were, but he didn't believe them?

Did he give them reasonable opportunity to argue their case, present appropriate evidence? Did they not act in a way that should have given him reason to doubt?

Hard to see that this could happen without him acting in a manner which would constitute as evil. In fact, it could be evil even if he was right - the evil he is doing is recklessness with others lives, and would still exist even if he got lucky and didn't harm any innocents.


Johnny is infected with lycanthropy. He was in a fight with a werewolf and infected. However, he doesn't realize it, and thus at the next full moon goes wild and kills a lot of people. Did he commit an evil act by not researching the effect of a werewolf's bite?

Not unless he had reason to think it might have such an impact on others.


What if he had found out what it did, locked himself up, but not well enough?

Not if he thought it would work


If he didn't commit an evil act by not realizing what the bite did, how many times can he transform before it becomes an evil act, assuming he fails his Wisdom check to figure it out every time?

Indefinately, but he'd have to be remarkably dense, as would a lot of other people, not to work it out eventually.

[Cyclone231]

See, the interesting thing here is that there's a universal consensus for his lack of guilt in almost all cases. The reason, is, of course, ignorance.

So, here's another hypothetical:

By a bizarre set of circumstances, Johnny becomes the king of a small kingdom. A special herb has come into use by the people of this kingdom, and it has negative long-term effects on their health and behavior. Johnny decides to ban the herb, in order to increase the people's life expectancy and reduce crime. However, the herb is still bought and sold, and those who sell it have no legal recourse should someone steal their herbs or commit similar crimes against them and thus resort to violence in order to protect their interests; crime skyrockets and the life expectancy plummets. Eventually, Johnny realizes his error and corrects the problem. Did Johnny commit an evil act by banning it?

Or, how about this:
Still the king, Johnny is alerted to a small religious minority (let's call them the Adherents) who appear to be very dangerous. The Adherents are infamous as thieves and said to consort with devils. After some research, he comes to the conclusion that the majority of the Adherents are thieves (not the kind who steal for food) and that a large minority of them do, in fact, consort with devils. As such, Johnny bans the religion. Alas, however, there is still much worship in the kingdom, and many have been killed by summoned devils and in botched robberies. He puts forth a prison sentence for being an Adherent, and many people go to jail for it. While a majority of them were criminals of one sort or another, there was a minority who never committed a crime in their life. Did Johnny commit an evil act?

[Skjaldbakka]

If Johnny had detected the villians himself (detect evil as example) then not evil.

That would still be evil. A greedy merchant that cheats his customers would detect as evil, but killing him on cold blood would still be an evil act.

[rayne_dragon]

See, the interesting thing here is that there's a universal consensus for his lack of guilt in almost all cases. The reason, is, of course, ignorance.

So, here's another hypothetical:

By a bizarre set of circumstances, Johnny becomes the king of a small kingdom. A special herb has come into use by the people of this kingdom, and it has negative long-term effects on their health and behavior. Johnny decides to ban the herb, in order to increase the people's life expectancy and reduce crime. However, the herb is still bought and sold, and those who sell it have no legal recourse should someone steal their herbs or commit similar crimes against them and thus resort to violence in order to protect their interests; crime skyrockets and the life expectancy plummets. Eventually, Johnny realizes his error and corrects the problem. Did Johnny commit an evil act by banning it?


I don't think so, since he was trying to do what was best for his citizens. However he is doing an awful job of policing his kingdom. If he re-legalizes the herb, however, I would say that he's commiting an evil act since he knows that will harm his people - it's just letting the crooks know they have the run of the kingdom.



Or, how about this:
Still the king, Johnny is alerted to a small religious minority (let's call them the Adherents) who appear to be very dangerous. The Adherents are infamous as thieves and said to consort with devils. After some research, he comes to the conclusion that the majority of the Adherents are thieves (not the kind who steal for food) and that a large minority of them do, in fact, consort with devils. As such, Johnny bans the religion. Alas, however, there is still much worship in the kingdom, and many have been killed by summoned devils and in botched robberies. He puts forth a prison sentence for being an Adherent, and many people go to jail for it. While a majority of them were criminals of one sort or another, there was a minority who never committed a crime in their life. Did Johnny commit an evil act?

I would probably say yes, unless there was evidence that those who hadn't commited a crime had either knowingly aided the others in commiting their crimes or were planning to commit crimes.

[Fiery Justice]

For these examples, we're going to be using the example of "Johnny," a do-gooder who wants to do right by the world, but constantly does it ill.

Johnny captures a wanted criminal and hands her over to the lawful authorities. After the criminal's arrest, the prison guards take the opportunity to abuse and, well, do evil stuff to the criminal. Did Johnny commit an evil act by this? What if the criminal was innocent after all, though Johnny had no idea? What if Johnny had heard rumors about the prison guards being abusive monsters beforehand but did nothing about it? What else is he going to do? If the criminal's dangerous who else is going to stop her from continuing her crimes? Is he going to spend the rest of his life guarding her personally? I mean, I'm sure the guards are horrible. But does he have a better solution? I'm not really seeing one. If the criminal is innocent but he gave his all to find out if this were so, then it sucks to be her, but there wasn't a solution.


He kills them, and brings it back to the magical creature so that it can be destroyed. However, unlike the other monsters, these "phasms" were really knights and sorcerers carrying a powerful artifact for good. Did Johnny commit an evil act by trusting the creature and killing those people? What if they had told him who they really were, but he didn't believe them? Johnny is committing reckless endangerment, which is evil, therefore its an evil act. I won't get into that too deeply right now, but there is a reason why all civilized countries have due process (and why we partially define civilized as having due process).


Johnny is infected with lycanthropy. He was in a fight with a werewolf and infected. However, he doesn't realize it, and thus at the next full moon goes wild and kills a lot of people. Did he commit an evil act by not researching the effect of a werewolf's bite? What if he had found out what it did, locked himself up, but not well enough? If he didn't commit an evil act by not realizing what the bite did, how many times can he transform before it becomes an evil act, assuming he fails his Wisdom check to figure it out every time? Johnny's player needs to increase his wisdom score (and, by the way, being a lycanthrope increases your wisdom score), but aside from that, in no way shape or form has he failed to try as hard as possible. Well, I suppose he could kill himself, but that would be killing an innocent.


By a bizarre set of circumstances, Johnny becomes the king of a small kingdom. A special herb has come into use by the people of this kingdom, and it has negative long-term effects on their health and behavior. Johnny decides to ban the herb, in order to increase the people's life expectancy and reduce crime. However, the herb is still bought and sold, and those who sell it have no legal recourse should someone steal their herbs or commit similar crimes against them and thus resort to violence in order to protect their interests; crime skyrockets and the life expectancy plummets. Eventually, Johnny realizes his error and corrects the problem. Did Johnny commit an evil act by banning it? You mean he bans a drug ? So not evil. A little bit too lawful maybe, but still.


Still the king, Johnny is alerted to a small religious minority (let's call them the Adherents) who appear to be very dangerous. The Adherents are infamous as thieves and said to consort with devils. After some research, he comes to the conclusion that the majority of the Adherents are thieves (not the kind who steal for food) and that a large minority of them do, in fact, consort with devils. As such, Johnny bans the religion. Alas, however, there is still much worship in the kingdom, and many have been killed by summoned devils and in botched robberies. He puts forth a prison sentence for being an Adherent, and many people go to jail for it. While a majority of them were criminals of one sort or another, there was a minority who never committed a crime in their life. Did Johnny commit an evil act? Members of the cult would almost certainly be accessories to some pretty heinous acts (conjuring of demons, murder, theft, destruction of property.) and therefore guilty by association. It defies belief that after the edicts of the Good King John they wouldn't have at least looked into the thing. Still, I wouldn't say it was a good act, just neutral.

[Cyclone231]

I don't think so, since he was trying to do what was best for his citizens. However he is doing an awful job of policing his kingdom. If he re-legalizes the herb, however, I would say that he's commiting an evil act since he knows that will harm his people - it's just letting the crooks know they have the run of the kingdom.It harms his people more to not re-legalize the herb; by illegalizing it, he only exasperated the problems that had already existed, rather than correcting them.

[Keld Denar]

One of the lines you are walking there is the crime of negligence. In America, if a responsible body (say, a company's management) discovers something (say, an unsafe part of a manufacturing process) and yet did nothing about it, and then that process failed in a way that resulted in injury or death of employees, then that company can be tried for negligence charges. Exactly who gets prosecuted depends on who the responsible body was, if it was the shift manager, the safety manager, the plant manager, the VP of the region, or the president/CEO himself. Also, whether or not charges would be pressed against the body is determined by whether or not the unsafe process was discovered, to whom it was reported to, and their responsive actions. Say the shift manager found it out, and he told the safety manager, who told the plant manager. The plant manager didn't want to spend a large part of his budget to make the change, so he ordered the safety manager and shift manager to ignore it and not make the change. After an accident and an investigation, this information is found out, the plant manager would be in the most trouble, since he was the one who knowingly dismissed the concern. The other two would also be held responsible, even though they mostly did what they were supposed to do, they could have pursued other avenues to alert people to the safety concern.

So, in one of your examples, turning over a criminal to an authority where Johnny knew they would be treated cruelly is evil, due to negligence. There is always another option. Johnny could seek another authority to turn the criminal over to, or handle the punishment himself in a just way (force the criminal to be his page/servant/etc while imparting good morals and virtues upon him and teaching by example) or any number of other things. Being good isn't about choosing the lesser of 2 evils, it about finding a 3rd solution that isn't evil, and doing that, even if its much harder and much more dangerous.

Oh, and infected lycanthropes can't infect others. Only true lycanthropes can infect others, according to D&D rules. :smallcool:

[Starbuck_II]

That would still be evil. A greedy merchant that cheats his customers would detect as evil, but killing him on cold blood would still be an evil act.

The PHB says Alhandra (LG Paladin) shows evil no mercy. Not letting them live is mercy. So it would be okay to kill the merchant if he is evil.

I do'nt count greed as an evil act. I think the error is on the DM for wrongfully labeling the merchant.

[Nerd-o-rama]

For these examples, we're going to be using the example of "Johnny," a do-gooder who wants to do right by the world, but constantly does it ill.

Johnny captures a wanted criminal and hands her over to the lawful authorities. After the criminal's arrest, the prison guards take the opportunity to abuse and, well, do evil stuff to the criminal. Did Johnny commit an evil act by this? What if the criminal was innocent after all, though Johnny had no idea? What if Johnny had heard rumors about the prison guards being abusive monsters beforehand but did nothing about it?No, no, and maybe. Johnny should really do his best to rectify the abuses of the law by the prison guards, particularly if he is of a Lawful Good-type mindset.

Johnny meets a magical creature in the forest, and it tells him that there are some vampires hanging around, ambushing people on the road, that he ought to kill. He makes sure the vampires are really evil, and then he goes out and kills them. This process is repeated with various other villains, and he is then told that a trade caravan is, in fact, wholly populated by evil phasms carrying a nasty artifact. He kills them, and brings it back to the magical creature so that it can be destroyed. However, unlike the other monsters, these "phasms" were really knights and sorcerers carrying a powerful artifact for good. Did Johnny commit an evil act by trusting the creature and killing those people? What if they had told him who they really were, but he didn't believe them?If he didn't ascertain that they were evil (actually evil, not just pinging on Detect Evil, that can be fooled), he was negligent and committed an Evil act because of that. Does this make Johnny Evil? No, it makes him stupid, or at least a dupe.

Johnny is infected with lycanthropy. He was in a fight with a werewolf and infected. However, he doesn't realize it, and thus at the next full moon goes wild and kills a lot of people. Did he commit an evil act by not researching the effect of a werewolf's bite? What if he had found out what it did, locked himself up, but not well enough? If he didn't commit an evil act by not realizing what the bite did, how many times can he transform before it becomes an evil act, assuming he fails his Wisdom check to figure it out every time?Negligent, and increasingly stupid as time goes on, but I wouldn't say Evil. However, Wrewolf-strain lycanthropy forcibly changes his alignment and outlook to Chaotic Evil by magic, so he'd eventually become Evil through no fault of his own.


To me, Evil implies active self-interest more so than simply doing Evil deeds out of ignorance. These questions are on that borderline, mostly.

[Ellisthion]

I would say that the banning and arresting of the religion is not evil, especially considering the medieval society we're talking about. If people are going to associate themselves with known thieves and devil worshippers, and there's a law against it, then they should suffer the consequences.

[Ryuka Tana]

"Okay, an important note here, is you cannot look at alignment with a good (and especially not lawful) bias, or you will name evil where it is not. None of the acts you mentioned were evil, chaotic, some even ALMOST, but none were truly evil. Capturing a criminal is lawful, and turning him in regardless of a 'rumor' of cruelty is not evil. A rumor does not constitute fact, and if you are not actively harming him, you're that much less liable. Your intentions were definitely lawful, if not good, and your end result could have brought harm to the person, but if that person was a criminal, the act was neutral at worst. Evil acts in this situation would have been torturing the criminal or actively knowing the criminal would be tortured and happily leaving him to that fate. If you KNOW that he will be tortured, but your only recourse is to kill him or let him go, and he will cause real harm to innocent people, then it is not completely evil to leave him to be tortured. Though the better answer would be to kill him if his crimes were not severe enough to warrant torture."

"As for the phasms, assuming they are evil is not evil. Killing them outright knowing they are good, is evil. Killing them because you are suspicious of their nature, is not evil, depending on the circumstances. If you have no safe way to judge their goodness without risking yourself or others, you are not good in killing them, but not yet evil. If you have the means to test them with no risk, then it's an evil act."

"Under no circumstance is the werewolf case an evil act, so long as he was not actively allowing himself to become a werewolf and slaughter people. If he was not doing anything about it, even though he knows about it, he's definitively chaotic, but criminal negligence is criminal (law does not equal good or even right, don't BS yourself into thinking otherwise), not evil. Of course, anyone killing you for allowing yourself to become a werewolf, is not in the wrong either."

"As for the act of banning the drug, that's a matter of smart or stupid, really. Better to let idiots kill themselves than to harm innocent people by inciting violence. Neither act is evil, both are done with good intentions, being foolish is not evil."

"With the cult thing, having 'innocent' people imprisoned for associating with criminals is lawful, and neither good nor evil. Removing the actual threats (those trafficking with devils) is a good act. As long as you are adjudicating fairly (not just killing anyone that 'might' be an Adherent), it wouldn't necessarily be evil to kill them (it just wouldn't be good)."

"Remember, DEATH is not evil, death is completely neutral. Killing is evil only if it is purposefully self-serving. Otherwise, it is chaotic, often borderline evil, but not evil. Sometimes killing is the good course of action (rarely, but sometimes). Torture, on the other hand, is NEVER good. Everyone dies, not everyone has to suffer before they die."

[Yahzi]

"Johnny," a do-gooder who wants to do right by the world, but constantly does it ill.
The answer to all your questions is the same:

What would Johnny want someone else to do if they were in his shoes?

[hamishspence]

BoED: "Turning someone over to be tortured, even if they are guilty and evil and the torturers are a legitimate authority, is evil"

But you do have to know that it will happen for it to be unquestionably evil.

[Cyclone231]

Alright, here's the ultimate question:
Still king, Johnny learns of a racial minority with a peculiar and dangerous magical effect upon them: they randomly create disease wherever they go, spreading it amongst the populace. Johnny determines that the only safe solution is to kill them all; imprisoning them would still spread their diseases, as would their forced emigration. As such, Johnny wages a slow campaign of genocide upon them. Is that an evil act? What if they weren't really diseased, and Johnny just thought they were?

[Tengu_temp]

Evil. There are many other ways of handling this situation, none of which involve killing innocent people.

[Starbuck_II]

Alright, here's the ultimate question:
Still king, Johnny learns of a racial minority with a peculiar and dangerous magical effect upon them: they randomly create disease wherever they go, spreading it amongst the populace. Johnny determines that the only safe solution is to kill them all; imprisoning them would still spread their diseases, as would their forced emigration. As such, Johnny wages a slow campaign of genocide upon them. Is that an evil act? What if they weren't really diseased, and Johnny just thought they were?

Actually, imprisoning them wouldn't spread the diseases.
Unless he means jail.

What I mean is isolating them on a deserted island with a year's supply of food. Sort of banishment.

But back to thios wacky problem:
Killing them is nuetral at best; probably evil in most situations.
Did he try to find a cure first?

If they weren't really diseased and Johnny just thought it then evil; also Johnny is crazy.

[Cyclone231]

Actually, imprisoning them wouldn't spread the diseases.
Unless he means jail.

What I mean is isolating them on a deserted island with a year's supply of food. Sort of banishment.
And then they die of starvation. Also, how many people are infected with their diseases while you move them? What do you do about the people who avoid detection, or who refuse to get on the boat in the first place? What if the "deserted island" actually has people on it?


Did he try to find a cure first?Sure.

[paddyfool]

The ultimate question - evil.
The rest - not.

Here's another one:

Johnny is travelling in a fast carriage with a merchant and sees a band of gnolls (too many and too well-armed for him to fight) closing on a group of cute l'il orphan waifs. He has an idea - if he throws the merchant to the gnolls, it might give him time to load up the orphans in the carriage and get them out of there. Assuming the lack of other options, would it be evil to throw the merchant to the gnolls to prevent the greater suffering of the cute l'il orphans?

Alternatively, Johnny sees a group of gnolls approaching a narrow pass, with two paths leading out of it. If they turn left, they'll meet the orphans and eat them; if right, the merchant. Neither the orphans nor the merchant stands a chance of escape without his intervention. However, he has time to close off one of the paths. Would it be evil in this instance to close off the path to the children?

Further question - what is the difference, morally, between the above two questions?

[Tengu_temp]

And then they die of starvation. Also, how many people are infected with their diseases while you move them? What do you do about the people who avoid detection, or who refuse to get on the boat in the first place? What if the "deserted island" actually has people on it?

Sure.

Adding conditions to the original question, after it was asked, dissolves its accuracy by quite a bit.

Still, the best thing to do in this situation is forced migration. A king with absolute power over his people, if wise, would be able to do that in a way that minimizes the effects of the disease and does not let the minority in question starve.



Johnny is travelling in a fast carriage with a merchant and sees a band of gnolls (too many and too well-armed for him to fight) closing on a group of cute l'il orphan waifs. He has an idea - if he throws the merchant to the gnolls, it might give him time to load up the orphans in the carriage and get them out of there. Assuming the lack of other options, would it be evil to throw the merchant to the gnolls to prevent the greater suffering of the cute l'il orphans?


Throwing the merchant off the carriage is more evil than letting the gnolls kill the orphans. "Kill a man to save ten" is a stance Ozymandias would approve of.

I'm answering under the assumption that there are absolutely no other options.



Alternatively, Johnny sees a group of gnolls approaching a narrow pass, with two paths leading out of it. If they turn left, they'll meet the orphans and eat them; if right, the merchant. Neither the orphans nor the merchant stands a chance of escape without his intervention. However, he has time to close off one of the paths. Would it be evil in this instance to close off the path to the children?


Both options are painful, but neither is evil. Doing nothing would be.

Again, I'm answering under the assumption that there are absolutely no other options.

[paddyfool]

Interesting answers...

Some more scenarios. Let's say the gnolls are headed straight for the orphans down a narrow canyon, while Johnny stands in a high place above it where he cannot get down to directly interfere and the Merchant hides behind some bushes:

--------------------------
--------------------J | M |
----------------------@@-------------------------
o o G G G G
o o G G G G
--------------------------------------------------


J Johnny
M Merchant
o Orphan
G Gnoll
@ Bush
- | Canyon walls

Now, here are some scenarios:
1) Johnny pushes some rocks down, blocking the canyon. The Gnolls are prevented from getting to the orphans, but then they smell the Merchant and eat him instead. Does this make Johnny evil?

1a) As 1, but Johnny knew he'd give the merchant away if he did this.

2) Johnny quietly signals the merchant, saying "unless you go out there, those children are going to die". The merchant plucks up his courage, and runs out. The gnolls eat him while the orphans run away. DtmJe?

3) Johnny shouts to the gnolls that there is better prey behind the bushes. They turn to look, see the merchant, and move in on him, letting the orphans get away. DtmJe?

(Incidentally, for those of you who don't know, this is all based on the classic Trolley Problem - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem, roughly converted for D&D.)

[Tengu_temp]

1. Not evil. Johnny didn't realize his actions would doom the merchant.
1a. Evil. Kill A Man To Save Ten again.
2. Not evil. The merchant decided to sacrifice himself on his own.
3. Evil, unless Johnny has a plan in mind that lets him save both the orphans and the merchant.

[Cyclone231]

Okay, since we're switching over to good/evil math questions :smallannoyed: instead of ignorance-based questions, here's one:

Johnny's entire kingdom is filled 90% with evil people, and is on an isolated island. They want to kill the other 10% of the population. Johnny discovers he has a magical artifact in the royal treasury which can kill either section of the population. If he doesn't pick one, the violence will just kill many members of both groups until one is dead, with a much greater death toll. He decides to kill the smaller number, the non-evil members of his kingdom, to limit the death toll. Did he commit an evil act? Would he commit one by killing the evil folks in his kingdom? What about if he does neither, and it kills a quarter of his population, including all the non-evil folks?

[Starbuck_II]

Okay, since we're switching over to good/evil math questions :smallannoyed: instead of ignorance-based questions, here's one:

Johnny's entire kingdom is filled 90% with evil people, and is on an isolated island. They want to kill the other 10% of the population. Johnny discovers he has a magical artifact in the royal treasury which can kill either section of the population. If he doesn't pick one, the violence will just kill many members of both groups until one is dead, with a much greater death toll. He decides to kill the smaller number, the non-evil members of his kingdom, to limit the death toll. Did he commit an evil act? Would he commit one by killing the evil folks in his kingdom? What about if he does neither, and it kills a quarter of his population, including all the non-evil folks?

Yes, killing the good so they won't be killed isn't logical. They still died. This would be evil.
Limiting a death toll isn't a moral issue: stopping killing can be.

It isn't evil to kill evil to save good to on the evil Population (as long as they all evil).
So he can totally use the artifact.

But the second issue:
How does killing a quarter help? I'm confused...
Did Johnny go crazy?
But yes, he killed innocence on purpose. Evil.

[Tengu_temp]

Okay, since we're switching over to good/evil math questions :smallannoyed: instead of ignorance-based questions, here's one:

Actually, the moment you start to treat morality as an accountant, balance lives lost and saved and see what results did you end up with, your chances of sliding into the evil territory increase significantly.



Johnny's entire kingdom is filled 90% with evil people, and is on an isolated island. They want to kill the other 10% of the population. Johnny discovers he has a magical artifact in the royal treasury which can kill either section of the population. If he doesn't pick one, the violence will just kill many members of both groups until one is dead, with a much greater death toll. He decides to kill the smaller number, the non-evil members of his kingdom, to limit the death toll. Did he commit an evil act? Would he commit one by killing the evil folks in his kingdom? What about if he does neither, and it kills a quarter of his population, including all the non-evil folks?

This is a no-brainer. Killing the good people is evil, killing the evil people would be good. Johnny is being an idiot here by preferring to kill innocents instead of 9 times as many bastards who deserve to die.