Why the Evil Alignment Spectrum is so Undefined

[imp_fireball]

First, let's take a look at the different axioms:

Lawful Evil - A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

Neutral Evil - A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

Chaotic Evil - A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.

Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
----

Evil. What is evil? Well, in a black and white scenario, it would be the opposite of good.

But on a more general basis, how do you identify one from the other?

Good exists to help others. Evil exists to destroy, corrupt, or otherwise harm others.

But why? The main thing D&D doesn't grasp is that it doesn't realize that it must ask players to understand why, or define why in their own way. It merely cuts and pastes assumptions of what evil might be perceived in a typical genre film - whether if that's 'safer' for imploring a quick and easy/fun campaign though is not the key question to ask here.

The main question is more broad. Simply why.

Evil opposes good. Evil harms others. Evil only scratches its own back.

"Screw the rules (of society), I am evil!" Evil says.

But how could anyone bring themselves to commit evil? Of course, in a cliche campaign, it isn't just anyone. The Big Bad Evil Guy is most likely evil(tm), and most likely famous - how else would the PCs hear about him?

What needs to be known, realistically, is what defines evil. That in itself, is the first step, in discovering why.
-----

So let's take a look at what big, powerful evil people do. Powerful people don't necessarily have to be influential. In fact, power can be anything.

In terms of D&D, power most likely represents raw, physical power. The ability to best someone else in combat, best represented by one's challenge rating.

An evil character with a high challenge rating has a lot of raw power. The SRD often assumes that an evil character will commit murder a lot. It makes sense; what better way to stay both evil and powerful than to make use of that power and murder indiscriminately? And clearly an evil person with less of a challenge rating (having less raw power at their dispossal) would end up committing less murder. Does that make the latter less evil?

If we play it by that linear scale, then the conclusion immediately defines evil as that of anyone who has a high challenge rating and commits lots of murder. But then murder must be quantifiable. How much murder exactly???

"How much must I murder to retain my chaotic evil alignment?" Cries the player to the GM. The GM frantically looks up the PHB (3rd ed in this case) but finds no quantity. The GM is ultimately confuddled. Error. Does not compute. Rocks fall! Everybody dies. Blue screen of death. Reboot. Better luck next campaign.
-----

"But wait!" Thinks a reader, "That's not how it should work at all. I've seen (insert pop fictional culture) where there's other kinds of evil abounding. Evil can be subtle too!"

Why, yes! In fact, the SRD pretty much defines that as Lawful Evil! Evil that is commited without the necessity to flex the limits of your ECL to their absolute greatest extent. Affably evil. Intelligently evil.

But wait, intelligence? Don't the rules allow chaotic evil people to have higher intelligence scores than lawful evil people?

Why yes, in fact a chaotic evil person can completely outclass a lawful evil person mentally in all faculties.

Why then, does it still mean a chaotic person has to flex the full extent of their ECL's combat prowess? Is it truly wise to murder a stranger because you felt like it? Are chaotic evil people still incapable of planning? Are they still frequently unsuccessful entirely because of their alignment?

Why yes... I mean maybe. I mean...

Doesn't the PHB state that alignment is not a straight jacket?

Of course, but...

I think we should at least play it safe and ask the audience here.
------

Evil is poorly defined and could use a perceptive overhauling. Opinions?

[Devils_Advocate]

Only skimmed the OP so far, but...

Couldn't a Chaotic Evil character cleverly arrange for a lot of senseless deaths without endangering himself? You know, more along the lines of poisoning the town's water supply than attacking random people on the street.

Or does CE need to be overtly criminal? Does just pretending to follow the rules push you towards NE? If it does, then it should push a Good character towards CG, too.

I see choosing to harm others as a central component of Evil. Necessary, if not sufficient, for a deed or a creature to be Evil. (And yeah, it does depend on how you define "harm".)

[Eloel]

Don't get another alignment debate in here, we have enough...

[Tengu_temp]

The more evil you are, the less moral qualms you have against performing acts that give you benefit at the cost of someone else. A pure evil character's morality will not stop him from killing a kid to take his candy, or just for the lulz - some other elements might stop him, like knowing he won't get away with murder or feeling that it's too much effort for too little results, but morality won't be one of them.

[imp_fireball]

Only skimmed the OP so far, but...

Couldn't a Chaotic Evil character cleverly arrange for a lot of senseless deaths without endangering himself? You know, more along the lines of poisoning the town's water supply than attacking random people on the street.

Or does CE need to be overtly criminal? Does just pretending to follow the rules push you towards NE? If it does, then it should push a Good character towards CG, too.

I see choosing to harm others as a central component of Evil. Necessary, if not sufficient, for a deed or a creature to be Evil. (And yeah, it does depend on how you define "harm".)

The Joker is chaotic evil and he frequently plans things. But at the same time, he doesn't conceal who he is.

In the dark knight, he flaunts himself to everyone. He's the Joker. Be very afraid. His beliefs make him a cold blooded anarchist (anarchy for fun, anarchy for the sake of your own taste in comedy) and the most blatant example of one.

Does that rectify your assumptions or does it only serve to confuse things further?

A good sub-question: Do chaotic evil people ever have clear and acheivable goals? Or are they always just insane? Could the same thing be covered by insanity rules and the use of a broad character trope?

By contrast, the Joker doesn't have reasonable goals (Anarchy isn't reasonable; burning money that you caused so much anguish and suffering over to steal isn't reasonable).

Consider reason be something most likely defined by a human society (since humans are real).

[Mastikator]

Is it truly wise to murder a stranger because you felt like it? Are chaotic evil people still incapable of planning?

I take issue with this.
It is neither wise nor unwise to commit murder for fun. Priorities and behaviors are NOT covered by int-wis-cha stats, those describe capabilities. People can be complicated, maybe someone is sadistic enough to enjoy killing, and thinks that getting in trouble for killing is more fun than not. People can have different goals.
Secondly, you are not incapable of planning because you're chaotic, you're chaotic because you're incapable of planning. But being incapable of planning doesn't necessarily mean chaotic, it's a detail in a larger picture. Personally I don't like the alignment system at all, if the character is bad at planning, then put that in personality description not "chaos".

Although, I do agree with you on that "Evil" is poorly defined. LE and CE burrows from the worst aspects of law and chaos, and neutral evil simply defines it as "not good, also not lawful or chaotic". That's a non-definition.

I define evil as sadism and hate. It is a cause, not a tool. And it's not just the absence of good. We have neutral for that.

[Random NPC]

I've never found any problem with the axis.

I see good as giving and doing things for the benefits of others. Society, friends, family or whatever. Putting things before you. Evil is the opposite. Doing things for your own benefit without taking care of the needs of anyone

[imp_fireball]

The Neutral axis is the most blatant example of obscurity in D&D, defined essentially as 'not evil' and 'not good'. But we won't go into that.

This thread's purely about evil.

It is a cause, not a tool.

By cliche those that use it as a tool are frequently assumed LE.

Is someone who is evil aware that he is evil - or on a more well defined level, aware that other people think he is evil?

How can you support a cause if you are not aware of it?

In D&D it takes a paladin smacking you to tell you that - and then other people think the paladin was in poor taste for not allowing the victim of his smite to understand that.

Even if the paladin argues that 'he never would understand', it'd be a court matter. Unless the paladin themselves were confused.

[Mastikator]

Well, if evil is defined as sadism and hate, and as a cause. Then anyone who kills for pleasure or hate is killing for the cause of evil. Whether they are aware of this cause or not.

You can be aware of wanting to help people and be nice without being aware of having a cause for goodness. Because it's an implicit cause.

[Halaster]

Well, from D&Ds alignment system, to WoD's natures, whenever a roleplaying game tries to squeeze behaviour into some kind of predefined categories with an impact on gameplay, the results are most likley sub-par. The reason being of course, that you can't just group everyone into 9 categories, people are too complex for that.

So I tend to see alignment purely as a game mechanic. The gods, or whoever, reward unselfish, helpful behaviour with a "good" sticker, and selfish, hurtful behaviour with a "bad" sticker, and thus divine magic and such reacts to people according to this grouping.

And I don't think anyone benefits from overanalyzing alignment. Simply make your calls as a GM as to what your characters' alignments are, tell the players, if they change, and be done with it. Play your bad guys the way you imagine them and slap the least inappropriate evil label on them.

Basically, the whole alignment thing is both so superfluous and so deeply ingrained in the rules that it is a) not worth bothering with and b) nearly impossible to get rid of. So, just run with it, and ignore it whenever you can.

[Yora]

Good people are good to other people, evil people don't care if others get harmed.
Lawful people tend to accept the rules, though they may not like them, chaotic people follow their guts.

That's all definition alignment needs.

[Halaster]

Probably true, but it shows the problem: alignment works only, if it isn't really saying very much about a person. If you try to do more with it than this simple definition, it becomes both stifling and vague. Can my chaotic character plan ahead? Can he maintain long-term relationships? Can an evil character love his dog? His wife and kids?

The answer is: alignment can't tell you that, without becoming cumbersome. So it's best to ignore the attempts at blowing it out of proportion that the authors occasionally undertake, and stick with Yora's advice.

[Chrono22]

You are correct that nine alignments can't include everyone. But this homebrew alignment system introduced on the wotc boards can:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1181832
I just overlook his misuse of the word candid. He actually means conditional.

BTW- I don't agree with having alignment based spells and powers. I think it has some merit as a way of assisting character development, but that's it.

[Halaster]

That system seems to change nothing at all, except for a written statement as to how far you're going to take your characters alignment. Big deal. Didn't need a word for that, really. And, more importantly, it doesn't answer the questions that came up here. On the contrary, it muddles the waters by adding a third axis on which you can be unsure where to put your character, instead of giving you some leeway. Massively counterproductive. I'll stay away from that one.

[BobVosh]

Ah, this beat dead horse. Alignment system is so vague to the point you can convincingly argue almost any action to whatever alignment you like. Obviously there are a few exceptions, but that is hardly helpful.

[Chrono22]

That system seems to change nothing at all, except for a written statement as to how far you're going to take your characters alignment. Big deal. Didn't need a word for that, really. And, more importantly, it doesn't answer the questions that came up here. On the contrary, it muddles the waters by adding a third axis on which you can be unsure where to put your character, instead of giving you some leeway. Massively counterproductive. I'll stay away from that one.

So... you don't accept the nine alignment system because it shoehorns characters into alignments, and people are more complex than that.

But you think adding a third axis, one that interprets the nine categories according to how the character individually embraces them, doesn't work because it muddles the waters.

If you want a concise alignment system, don't complain about it when it fails to be able to incorporate any character. I challenge you to create a character that could not be defined by alignment^3.

To the OP: alignment in dnd is further confused when you realize that good and evil exist as arbitrary and existent universal forces. Good outsiders are good creatures. Their goodness is part of their being... even when they are wholly committed to evil acts and agendas. Likewise, a "good" balor can never truly escape the inherent evil of himself.

[Pronounceable]

The reason being of course, that you can't just group everyone into 9 categories, people are too complex for that.

Actually you can.

alignment works only, if it isn't really saying very much about a person.

Bingo! That's the point of alignment: a generalization that states a person's general moral and ethical (to use two keywords that get thrown around in such debates) tendencies in a very broad manner. No, seriously, alignments are broad.

Which is why you can actually classify everyone into one of the 9 categories. One usually has no trouble distinguishing someone's alignment (barring a certain infamous Batman's Alignment picture from the nets, which is dumbness incarnate anyway, everyone knows Batsy is LN) by the "gut feeling".

Or at least I don't.That fact might have something to do with me being chaotic.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

Good people are good to other people, evil people don't care if others get harmed.
Lawful people tend to accept the rules, though they may not like them, chaotic people follow their guts.

This. It really, really doesn´t need to be made into anything more than this. I´ll repeat it the way a friend of mine explains it:

Good people are kind. Evil peeps are jerks. Lawful fellows try to play by the rules. Chaotic dudes don´t care for other people´s rules.

Anything more than that is an individual character´s personality and traits, and has little to do with alignment. However, it is true that certain alignments contain a larger number of a certain parsonality type than others. For instance, a hard-working, boring, modest, and timid clerk is unlikely to be Chaotic Evil, but he could be.

[Xenogears]

This. It really, really doesn´t need to be made into anything more than this. I´ll repeat it the way a friend of mine explains it:

Good people are kind. Evil peeps are jerks. Lawful fellows try to play by the rules. Chaotic dudes don´t care for other people´s rules.

I always thought of the Law/Chaos thing as more of a Protection/Freedom thing. As in how much of your freedom will you give up to be safe? Are you willing to have secret police monitering your every move to ensure safety (Lawful) or would you rather risk the dangers of letting people go about their lives with no one watching them to make sure they aren't doing evil? (Chaos)

Anything more than that is an individual character´s personality and traits, and has little to do with alignment. However, it is true that certain alignments contain a larger number of a certain parsonality type than others. For instance, a hard-working, boring, modest, and timid clerk is unlikely to be Chaotic Evil, but he could be.

You mean DnD Ted Bundy basically?

[DamnedIrishman]

is dumbness incarnate anyway, everyone knows Batsy is LN)

Batman is a vigilante.
That means he breaks the law.
He is LN how?

[Xenogears]

Batman is a vigilante.
That means he breaks the law.
He is LN how?

Because he is trying to promote a lawful and orderly society? Because he thinks that its better for him to be monitering everyone to ensure their safety. The way I see it Lawful alignment has nothing to do with actually obeying the laws. A LG character certainly wouldn't obey laws that told him to kill babies and disobeying them would not make him NG or CG either. Even if he actively opposed the laws

[Narmoth]

[Trizap]

quoted for truthery.

[Eloel]

Good people are good to other people, evil people don't care if others get harmed.

That's all definition alignment needs.

No. Your definition of Evil is actually Neutral. Evil people actively harm.

[Coplantor]

No. Your definition of Evil is actually Neutral. Evil people actively harm.

Good people actively seeks to make the world a better place, meutral people does care about others beign harmed, they just dont have an urge to help others, pretty much like most people on the real world "How terrible, someone should do something".
Evil people just dont care about others, I see selfishness as the root of evil in DnD, "I'm first, my goals are first, you all are just means to my goals".

[Halaster]

So... you don't accept the nine alignment system because it shoehorns characters into alignments, and people are more complex than that.

But you think adding a third axis, one that interprets the nine categories according to how the character individually embraces them, doesn't work because it muddles the waters.

If you want a concise alignment system, don't complain about it when it fails to be able to incorporate any character. I challenge you to create a character that could not be defined by alignment^3.

Although it's beside the point, I'll quickly answer that: no matter how many axises (?) you define, it always leaves something out. No alignment would be best, but since it exists, it should be left in as marginal a role as possible. Simplification works. If alignment is reduced to two very clear and simple points (helps/hurts, follows/ignores rules), you can keep it out of 90% of your roleplaying decisions, possibly all of them. Which is a good thing. Any further definition attempts just hurt. Unless you do what I usually do, and write about 1/2-1 page of text on your character before you play.

I like that diagram. Really covers all you need to know. The Batman debate on the other hand highlights the problem very much. Thanks folks. He breaks the law on principle. He's chaotic. What the principle is, why he does it, doesn't matter. He did it, and he gets the t-shirt. Saves you a world of exegesis.

[Starbuck_II]

The Joker is chaotic evil and he frequently plans things. But at the same time, he doesn't conceal who he is.

In the dark knight, he flaunts himself to everyone. He's the Joker. Be very afraid. His beliefs make him a cold blooded anarchist (anarchy for fun, anarchy for the sake of your own taste in comedy) and the most blatant example of one.

That isn't exactly it.
He isn't doing it just for the that.
He wants the world to smile and laugh. He really thinks the world is too dreary and dull. If he gets rich along the way, why the hell not. He abhors the fact that Batman never laughs at his jokes.

All the villians of batman are crying our for help. He like Naruto is like a violent psychologist. They beat the person till they are cured.

[Tengu_temp]

Good people are kind. Evil peeps are jerks.

As much as I don't like using links to TV Tropes instead of normal arguments, this is a perfect place to do that.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph.../GoodIsNotNice
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil

Your point has been proven wrong.

[Xenogears]

That isn't exactly it.
He isn't doing it just for the that.
He wants the world to smile and laugh. He really thinks the world is too dreary and dull. If he gets rich along the way, why the hell not. He abhors the fact that Batman never laughs at his jokes.

All the villians of batman are crying our for help. He like Naruto is like a violent psychologist. They beat the person till they are cured.

The problem with trying to analyze batman characters (or most american comic characters) is that they are written by so many different people that they have the worst case of multiple personality disorder known to man. In some cases the Joker is a raving lunatic that kills for fun. Other times he is a comical jokester who is in it for the lulz. So either CN or CE basically.

[awa]

I would like to point out the biggest problem with alignment is that people aren’t one thing all the time imagine a Viking he could be true to his word wiling to die for his friends and family with out a second though but he also likes to go out and rape, murder and pillage. Now an individual like this could probably be called evil but the alignments as depicted don’t represent him well.