Is willingness enough? (AKA, another pointless alignment thread)

[Deme]

I've been interested in a question for a while now, and I'd like to see what the generally interesting people here would say to it:

Let us, for the sake of discussion, assume a world with an innate morality, where two opposing notions, labeled "good" and "evil," for our convenience, are objective and identifiable, inherent in planes, magic, objects, and entities of all varieties. "Good" is that which supports self-sacrifice, mercy, protecting all life, innocent life especially (even, regretfully, if that may mean destroying that which would harm innocent life, though for no other reason). "Evil" is that which supports the furthering of the self and the self's own goals, irregardless of, and taking pleasure in, the destruction of life and happiness that that path may cause. In other words, let us assume a DnD world with a standard alignment system.

There is no doubt, then, that a person who destroys innocent life for his own benefit is evil. But what of a person who would, happily, destroy innocent life for his own benefit...except that the circumstance has never arisen where destroying innocent life/happiness would be anything but a detriment to him?*
I'm not talking about just any person with casual fantasies of destruction... I'm talking about a person who, if placed in a scenario where acting on those fantasies could be done without him suffering a significant enough personal penalty** to deter him, would really do so, without hesitation or guilt and with pleasure. In fact, that penalty (and, of course, his consideration of said penalty) is all that is holding him back from going out and fulfilling those fantasies right now. But there's never been that scenario, so he's worked around it.

Is that man, without doing anything in particular, evil within the universe described? I know what I would say, but I wanna hear what everyone else would think.


*I 'm aware that the scenario is unlikely, but that's far from the point.
** As this is a question regarding immorality, moral penalties do not really count, unless getting into a good afterlife is a goal there. Likewise, any penalty he thinks he is strong enough/whatever enough to manage to escape is not significant enough for this question.

[Teron]

Yes, he's evil. I want to say "of course", but knowing these forums...

[BobVosh]

Yes, evil. Possibly neutral.

[Tequila Sunrise]

No, willingness alone is not enough. A man who would commit murder but lacks the opportunity has committed no Evil, while a man who would give to charity but lacks money has commited no Good.

Good and Evil require both intent and action. Neutrality is for those who lack one or both.

[sonofzeal]

I'd say that "intent" is enough, but that it needs a lot of qualifiers. For example, someone could be a generally callous person and believe himself easily capable of murder, but find himself unable to do it when the time came. Simultaneously, it's possible for a generally good person to suffer some severe psychological trauma (say, the death of a loved one) and commit murder without really thinking clearly.

My view - in this sort of world of objective good and evil, things can be good or evil without regards to specific actions, if it's in their nature to be that way. A gentle and benevolent person who's been locked in a room his whole life without anyone to be nice to is still a gentle and benevolent person, and a psychopath is still a psychopath even if he hasn't done anything horrible yet.

By way of analogy: a stable bridge is still stable if nothing drives over it, and an unstable one is still unstable even if the wrong combination of events hasn't come up yet. Stability and instability are inherent in the thing itself without regards to past behavior. Also, the stability/instability can change over time, due to reinforcement or sabotage. There's also all sorts of shades of grey, varying degrees of stability from "rock of Gibraltar" to "toothpicks and marshmallows" And only a specialized analysis (in this analogy, "magic") can accurately determine where on the spectrum things lie... though some on the extremes may be more self-evident than others.

[Juggernaut1981]

Under the D&D system, I would say "Yes he is evil in intent, and not yet evil in deed".

****TANGENT****
I am working on my own system where "alignment" is all about two questions:

#1 Is the world filled with patterns and is predictable? (Y = Ordered/Lawful, N = Chaotic, Neither = Neutral)

#2 Am I the most important being in the universe at the expense of other beings? (Y = Evil, N = Good, Neither [including important but not at the expense of others] = Neutral)

[sonofzeal]

Under the D&D system, I would say "Yes he is evil in intent, and not yet evil in deed".

****TANGENT****
I am working on my own system where "alignment" is all about two questions:

#1 Is the world filled with patterns and is predictable? (Y = Ordered/Lawful, N = Chaotic, Neither = Neutral)

#2 Am I the most important being in the universe at the expense of other beings? (Y = Evil, N = Good, Neither [including important but not at the expense of others] = Neutral)

Huh. IRL... well, I'm a mathematician, and a simulation-specialist specifically, and the whole of mathematics depends on a set of immutable rules. On the other hand, on a practical basis I tend to never assume that things will ever go according to plan. When the subway shuts down and we need to get all the way across the city, my brother (an otherwise highly chaotic person by any standard) will stand and wait for the emergency shuttle bus; I'll start walking, not because I lack faith in our transit system to behave rationally and consistently in special circumstances, but because I lack faith in our universe in general to behave rationally and consistently in special circumstances.

That said, I tend to be a lawful person by most standards; I hold myself to a high (and specific) standard, I try to obey the law when practical, and I try to be considerate of the group rather than just my individual needs.

[Satyr]

When it completely suffices to have "evil thaughts" to be evil, the only "good" people remaining are the lobotomized. What are these anyway? Thoughtcrimes?

People -and with people I mean everyone who is a feeling, sentient being - get angry, annoyed, depressed and furious all the time. People hate other people for different reasons, some of them good ("He is a bully that tyrannized my whole life") or bad ("I can't stand that he wears different colored socks all the time"). People fantasize about doing stuff all the time as well, from nice stuff ("I will ask her out for a date") to not so nice stuff (sexsexsexsexsexsex...) to outright nasty stuff. Usually, this isn't bad, because no one, absolutely no one is ever harmed through fantasized stuff. That is not evil in any way. That is just what everyone does.

So the question is, are people evil before they actually do anything evil? No, because as long as no one gets harmed, nothing bad happens.
If the "evil in the box" character never did anything wrong, but is predetermined to become "evil" no matter what he does, he is not evil either, because of the complete lack of free will and a chance to influence the own fate; without anything resembling a decision how could you evaluate the person's morals? When there are no alternatives, what else could our hypothetic character have done? When everything is predetermined, morals are completely insignificant.
If there is something like a free choice, the decision of harming other people when the situation arrives, cannot be predetermined before it actually happens. As soon as it does happen, feel free to come to a moral judgement, but prior to this, there is just no denominator to justify this. If our hypothetic character has a free will, he could decide otherwise, even though it is probably not likely.

It is actually easier to discuss this from the other side - think of a character who never did anything in his life that would establish him as a truly good guy or a truly bad guy, but who would eventually go out to do a good thing if the situation arrives, let's say someone get mugged and hypothetical good guy stands up and helps the victim. Now would you say hypothetical good guy was already good beforehand, because he fantasised about helping old ladies across the street?

[Dhavaer]

When it completely suffices to have "evil thaughts" to be evil, the only "good" people remaining are the lobotomized. What are these anyway? Thoughtcrimes?

It's not about wanting to do it, it's that they would, the opportunity just has never arisen. They might never have thought about killing in their lives, but if they'd backstab someone if it would benefit them and the opportunity arose, are they evil?

[sonofzeal]

It's not about wanting to do it, it's that they would, the opportunity just has never arisen. They might never have thought about killing in their lives, but if they'd backstab someone if it would benefit them and the opportunity arose, are they evil?

Indeed. IMO, the initial question was phrased poorly; it's not about "intent", but about "inherent nature", specifically whether it's in their nature to do more evil or good, all else being equal. Of course such things are unknowable in the real world... but hey, magic right?

[Riffington]

Unless you are locked in a dungeon, you have opportunities to do good and evil things. There is nobody so poor that he cannot act charitably. If your response to every situation in which you can show charity or mercy is "one day when I get rich", and then you get rich, you probably still won't be any more charitable. You were stingy with your time/money when you were poor, and you will be the same when you are rich. If you would happily kill a man for personal advancement, you'd lie about a man for personal advancement. You can think you'd hurt people if given the right chance, but you've had plenty of chances to hurt people and benefit. What did you do in those situations?

[CthulhuM]

There's no right answer to the question of intent in DnD alignment, it's entirely up to individual interpretation of the alignment system/morality in general. Some theories of morality say intent is all that matters, others say it doesn't matter at all and still others (like the DnD alignment system) are cobbled together messes with no single consistent system for determining the morality/immorality of anything.

That said, what the OP is trying to describe does go a bit beyond intent. The question is basically if a person can be judged good or evil based off of what they would do in a totally hypothetical situation. The answer, I would say, depends on whether or not predestination exists in the world being discussed. If so, then yes, because whatever infallible force is dividing people into good and evil can actually know what a person will do in a hypothetical situation. If not, then no, because if a person's actions are not predetermined then it is by definition impossible to know what they will do in a situation that has never occurred, even for an infallible force of nature.

[Fizban]

I would say that he's not evil until he actually does evil. He's neutral, maybe with a bad taste to a good person detecting them. But the second he has a chance to do so and goes through with an evil act, he becomes full blown evil. One of the rare times where committing a single act is enough to change your alignment.

[JonestheSpy]

Unless you are locked in a dungeon, you have opportunities to do good and evil things. There is nobody so poor that he cannot act charitably. If your response to every situation in which you can show charity or mercy is "one day when I get rich", and then you get rich, you probably still won't be any more charitable. You were stingy with your time/money when you were poor, and you will be the same when you are rich. If you would happily kill a man for personal advancement, you'd lie about a man for personal advancement. You can think you'd hurt people if given the right chance, but you've had plenty of chances to hurt people and benefit. What did you do in those situations?

Just to riff on Riffington's post, a truly evil person is probably going to find ways to be evil even if no opportunity to commit murder or whatever presents itself. Said person will probably be acting out of malice, spite, and a desire to hurt others while building themselves up, even if in small ways, as part of their day to day life.

Interesting note: studies of serial killers have shown that they tend to "work up to it". Torturing small animals and the like is a common start to their atroctities, and then they move on to bigger targets.

[Quietus]

If I knew the player's character had such thoughts, I would inform him (as if it mattered) that while his ACTIONS are neutral, his INTENTIONS gauge just where on that scaled of neutrality he sits. Someone who is willing to do harm an innocent man for his own benefit if he knows he won't be caught, but has never actually done anything, isn't going to ping on a Detect Evil spell; But in terms of his own morality, he's just one push away from it.

[Valentyne]

Well I would throw out the idea of a baby born with an antisocial personality disorder.....I know some would argue the whole nature vs nurture thing. But lets assume the nature thing. The baby WILL suffer from antisocial personality disorder no matter what.

True, he has never really had the chance to commit evil. But the basic personality I think \qualifies for intent and willingness to commit evil. But I would have no problem calling the child "evil".

[KillianHawkeye]

This is a little hard to judge because of the sheer unlikelihood of the hypothetical situation, but here is my opinion: Objectively Neutral with a bad attitude (and Evil-leaning tendencies). Given the chance, this character will probably fall to Evil sooner or later, but he hasn't yet.

Basically, everybody (and I mean EVERYBODY) has evil thoughts. But if you never do anything about it, you don't become Evil, regardless of the reason why. The OP has described someone that is not nice, who is selfish and doesn't place much value on others, but is afraid of the penalties associated with actually acting out their malicious fantasies. That's solidly Neutral. People are selfish by nature. Selfishness is Neutral. It only becomes Evil when it crosses the line and begins seriously hurting others. A truly Evil being would be more willing to make some sacrifices to cause Evil, just as a Good one would make sacrifices to stop Evil.

Now if we are talking about Nature vs Nurture, and you are stating it as a given that this person's nature is to be Evil, then you've already answered your own question, haven't you? But in D&D, I don't think most people are born with an alignment. Outsiders are, but not the "mortal races". They are born with a clean slate. Humanoids that are "usually Evil" become that way because of their societies, not because Evil is in their nature.

Like if we are talking about Damien from The Omen, then yes, I'm sure he'd set off a detect evil spell. Evil really IS in his nature, even at the very beginning of the movie when he hasn't even done anything yet. But he would have the [Evil] alignment subtype for sure. That's what tells us that he was born Evil, because he is more like a Half-Fiend or a Devil in a human body than an actual human. But I don't believe there is really a case like the OP suggested where an actual human can be this thoroughly Evil such that they'd detect as Evil even without performing a single Evil act.

[Tiki Snakes]

The way I choose to see it, in a truly objective world;
It's basically a black and white situation. Evil and Good are clear, distinct. They aren't philosophies, not really. They are sides, armies, forces.

In an objective world, the evil-thinking but neutral acting man is neutral, simply because he hasn't actively helped either side by deed. The forces of 'Good' and Evil' have neither prospered or lost in their esoteric war, in his case, so he remains on the sidelines until the day when he sees the perfect opportunity to 'indulge'. After that, he could be said to be Evil, in as much as he had physically sided with the Forces of Evil, in effect.

All of this and more is why I kind of dislike the concept of DnD having Objective, Cosmic Morality. It's just weird, and really un-intuitive to me.

[TheCountAlucard]

...irregardless...

Baaaargh!

But yeah, as far as I'm concerned, if you're planning to kill the Emperor and you decide not to go through with it, you're still guilty of conspiracy. [/metaphor]

[KillianHawkeye]

Conspiracy may be a crime, but it probably wouldn't cause an alignment shift.

Not to mention it's probably more Chaotic than Evil.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Wow, this thread has made me really glad that nobody can know what I'm really thinking IRL.

[hamishspence]

the closest thing to a D&D version of Damien is the Unholy Scion from Heroes of Horror. Unlike a normal half-fiend, it has evil subtype, is practically indistinguishable from a normal being (animal or humanoid are options for template) in looks, and has permanent control of parent.

on "evil thoughts" according to Fiendish Codex 2, Baator won't let you in unless you have done something (doesn't have to be much) since thoughts alone don't count.

[Thane of Fife]

Wow, this thread has made me really glad that nobody can know what I'm really thinking IRL.

The point isn't that thinking evil thoughts makes you evil, it's that being willing to do evil makes you evil:

Wishing that the person you're arguing with was dead is perfectly fine, as long as you wouldn't actually murder them given the perfect opportunity.

People are saying that being willing to do that would make you evil, not that wishing it were true does.

[Mewtarthio]

Bear in mind, Good and Evil are physical, albeit intangible, concepts in DnD. You can literally have places that have a higher concentration of Evil than others.

In essence, the man who would do Evil given the chance is Evil, but not because he's committing a sin. Rather, he would do Evil because he is Evil. Free will and souls make the metaphysics a whole lot more complicated, but that's the general idea. You can't say he's neutral until he commits an Evil act any more than you can say an unidentified object is electrically neutral until it repels a positive test charge.

[Tiki Snakes]

Bear in mind, Good and Evil are physical, albeit intangible, concepts in DnD. You can literally have places that have a higher concentration of Evil than others.

In essence, the man who would do Evil given the chance is Evil, but not because he's committing a sin. Rather, he would do Evil because he is Evil. Free will and souls make the metaphysics a whole lot more complicated, but that's the general idea. You can't say he's neutral until he commits an Evil act any more than you can say an unidentified object is electrically neutral until it repels a positive test charge.

In an objective world, where Good and Evil are physical concepts, I don't see how he COULD be Evil, though.

If he were a fiend, or demon, or generally had the Evil subtype, sure. If not, then I just don't see how he can actually BE evil. Without acting, without in any way influencing the cause of Good or Evil, he's a non-entity. He's nothing. merely having sympathy for one side isn't the same as Enlisting.

If we assume there is no free will in the world, that is another matter, of course. If he is destined to eventually do Evil, or if he literally is Evil by his very nature. But then, that shouldn't be possible outside of the Evil subtype, anyway.

If he has free will, and there is a physical, definate and un-relative Good and Evil, then surely only when he sides with either in such a way as to effect the amount of Good or Evil in the world will he 'register' on the scale at all?

I just don't understand it, really. Personally, I not only prefer more moral relativity, and general moral greyscale, I tend to downplay Alignment as much as possible.

I may even experiment with getting rid of it all-together, frankly. The idea of Morality being a concrete thing, not only measurable but with elemental, physical representation... it just seems to cheapen morality. Even Good itself seems undermined, if instead of being about what's Genuinely RIGHT, being Good becomes the same as merely picking a side in a war. In an Objective world, there just seems less actual value in being Good or Evil.

Eh. I'm awkward, though.

[MeklorIlavator]

Personally, I think it also matters the act and the circumstances where he would preform the act. If he would murder someone to save the world, he's at most neutral, maybe even good. If he's murder someone if they made fun of his shirt, well, that's another case entirely. Remember, alignments have some give and take in them, and are essentially generalities in any case. That's why Exalted/Paladins have it so rough: they give up the give and take nature.

[Juggernaut1981]

But what of a person who would, happily, destroy innocent life for his own benefit...except that the circumstance has never arisen where destroying innocent life/happiness would be anything but a detriment to him?*
I'm not talking about just any person with casual fantasies of destruction... I'm talking about a person who, if placed in a scenario where acting on those fantasies could be done without him suffering a significant enough personal penalty** to deter him, would really do so, without hesitation or guilt and with pleasure.

The person described is a person of evil intentions who does not yet have the opportunity to perform an evil act. Highly self-interested and also self-interested at the expense of others.

Any argument that this hypothetical individual is not evil is purely based on the fact of a lack of opportunity. This cuts the other way and suggests that someone who was on a desert island by themselves but when he met another person really really wanted to help them just to be nice... is not "Good".

Landmines are generally thought of as an evil device (they are indiscriminate and once placed ready to explode until they actually do so). The individual above is an "evil landmine" of a being. They are fully willing and capable of performing an evil act at any time where the appropriate trigger is activated.

There is no reason, other than opportunity to commit an evil act, for this person to not be considered evil. As a DM, I'd make your alignment Evil and tell you to keep playing the PC the same way.

[Tequila Sunrise]

The point isn't that thinking evil thoughts makes you evil, it's that being willing to do evil makes you evil:

Right, I'm saying that there are more than a couple Evil things I'd do if given the perfect opportunity.

[Fishy]

Let us, for the sake of discussion, assume a world with an innate morality, where two opposing notions, labeled "good" and "evil," for our convenience, are objective and identifiable, inherent in planes, magic, objects, and entities of all varieties.

So, in one of the 'standard' D&D cosmologies, and I can't tell if it's the one under discussion here or not, Evil is not just objective, it's elemental. You can go to Gehenna with a paper bag and fill it up with Evil Sand.

So... what in the Nine Hells does that mean?

Sand can't commit harmful acts, because it can't act. It can't be selfish, because it has no self. But our bag of Evil Sand is still somehow evil, by definition.

The two most common solutions are that the sand Is Just Evil, or the sand somehow induces sentient beings to act in an Evil manner. Either one works, because of DM fiat, but they have interesting repercussions.

In the first case, our hypothetical unlucky evildoer is either Evil or not, depending solely on his isEvil? bit. If a rock can be evil, then actions don't matter, and intent doesn't really matter either. No matter what he does with his life, the universe is somehow worse off because he's in it. It's a fairly grim world, but there are some interesting ideas to be mined there.

The second case introduces a kind of Evil Radioactivity into the cosmology. (Evilon particles, if you will). Inanimate objects can be a source of an Evility Field, and presumably some individuals can too. (This is probably what makes Undead evil in this kind of setting: No fault of their own, but they measurably 'leak' negative energy)

So now there's a range of possibilities. Our guy could be a source of evilons and therefore just inherently Evil, independent of his thoughts and actions. If not, then he's merely 'affected by evil' and has the same moral status as anyone else. (Neutral, if Goodness works in the same way, but it could be that people are inherently Good. Remember kids, asymmetry is more interesting that symmetry) He could be a someone who isn't inherently evil, but has a very low natural resistance to evilons, and will commit an Evil act on his first exposure. Or, he could be a someone who lives right on top of a massive Evil Field which is distorting his thoughts but not his actions- or, he could be an 'innocent' in an Evil Field who just got really 'unlucky'.

To make things more interesting and needlessly complicated, what if not only Evil Objects, but also Evil Acts produced a burst of evil radioactivity? Theft isn't bad because it hurts someone or hurts society, it's bad because it produces Evilons, which cause other people nearby to perform Evilon-producing actions, which in sufficient density produces a chain reaction that turns the skies black, causes the dead to rise as mindless killing machines, and/or opens a portal directly to the nine hells. So, don't litter.

If we go one more and make Evil Thoughts produce evil radioactivity which produces evil thoughts, then probably the situation spirals completely out of control very quickly.

[Satyr]

The point isn't that thinking evil thoughts makes you evil, it's that being willing to do evil makes you evil

What bugs me is that this means that someone who never did something benevolent or altruistic but is willing to do so is also intrisically good, because he totally would do good stuff if the situation arises... and that seems odd to me.