Three questions about alignment (D&D Any edition)

[Talakeal]

So, last night my GM made an announcement that if a player character ever committed an "evil act" they would be taken away from the controlling player. That got me thinking about some things I have been musing for some time.

First, is this an abuse of DM powers? I know the RPGA had the same policy, and it seems pretty standard for DMs to state up front "no evil characters", but is it actually appropriate to yank away a character from their owning player because they don't behave? Particularly if it is only a single event, or one which falls into a grey area.

Second, what alignment would you give a character who uses evil means to accomplish good deeds? Someone who is working for the greater good and is kind and compassionate, but is willing to get their hands dirty and employ whatever means are necessary to prevent a greater evil if they can't find another way.

Third, can one commit evil actions through negligence? For example, my players often put innocent lives at risk by using them as bait, being careless about collateral damage, shooting first and asking questions later, etc. Now, I don't play with alignment, but if I did would getting innocent civilians killed due to recklessness and lack of foresight be an evil act?

[BWR]

1. It's no worse than saying becoming undead automatically makes you an NPC. The DM is being straight with you from the beginning that evil PCs aren't acceptable and this will have consequences. As long as the DM tells you before the game starts what s/he wants from it and how things will be handled, everything's fine. You can make your own decisions ahead of time if you want to play in it or not. Perfectly within his rights and the only legitimate complaint you can make is 'I don't want that'.

2. Evil. Evil is as evil does. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No question. Now, defining 'evil' is a more interesting question, but if you've first admitted what you are doing is evil...

3. Possibly. Evil generally requires some measure of intent, even good intent, but blatant disregard for the saftey of others or ignoring consequences or not bothering to think things through might, for some DMs, be an evil act. Check with your DM beforehand so you don't get any unfair surprises. In general, I would say negligence, even gross negligence, isn't a directly evil act unless you honestly don't care about possible consequences.

[Cluedrew]

1. Well the GM, and the group as a whole, are allowed to make rules for their group. That being said if someone has to go this far the player and group are probably not compatible and parting ways would be a better solution. A single event is probably also to small to judge, although if it is ridiculously bad or follows a set of lesser but still unpleasant events then once might be enough.
2. If you mean uses necessary evil means to accomplish greater good I would say good, but they are standing at the beginning of a path that leads to evil even in this best case. Good characters can pull it off, but more often they don't and stop being good characters. It is easier in less extreme cases. I wouldn't call a prison guard evil just because he/she keeps people trapped on a piece of property. If there is prisoner abuse though...
3. If you are not doing anything to save someone, when it is within your power to do so, does it make a difference if you are a bystander or the killer? Same answer.

[Keltest]

So, last night my GM made an announcement that if a player character ever committed an "evil act" they would be taken away from the controlling player. That got me thinking about some things I have been musing for some time.

First, is this an abuse of DM powers? I know the RPGA had the same policy, and it seems pretty standard for DMs to state up front "no evil characters", but is it actually appropriate to yank away a character from their owning player because they don't behave? Particularly if it is only a single event, or one which falls into a grey area.

I would say yes, though its certainly better that theyre up front about it. Individual evil acts are not going to change your alignment, and there is plenty of room for neutral characters to poke into that end of the pool and still be basically heroic. I could see a consistent pattern of evil acts might result in the character becoming an antagonist, but a single one? That's uncalled for.

Second, what alignment would you give a character who uses evil means to accomplish good deeds? Someone who is working for the greater good and is kind and compassionate, but is willing to get their hands dirty and employ whatever means are necessary to prevent a greater evil if they can't find another way.

Neutral, probably, although even good characters can get away with it if they've truly exhausted all other options. They would inflict a penance on themselves, like Heracles did with his 12 labors, but they would cross that line if there was no alternative.

Third, can one commit evil actions through negligence? For example, my players often put innocent lives at risk by using them as bait, being careless about collateral damage, shooting first and asking questions later, etc. Now, I don't play with alignment, but if I did would getting innocent civilians killed due to recklessness and lack of foresight be an evil act?

That's a bit of a murky area. I would say yes, if you used a civilian as bait and they got hurt, that would reflect poorly on your alignment unless they volunteered for it and were aware of the risks.

[erikun]

So, last night my GM made an announcement that if a player character ever committed an "evil act" they would be taken away from the controlling player. That got me thinking about some things I have been musing for some time.

First, is this an abuse of DM powers? I know the RPGA had the same policy, and it seems pretty standard for DMs to state up front "no evil characters", but is it actually appropriate to yank away a character from their owning player because they don't behave? Particularly if it is only a single event, or one which falls into a grey area.

It sounds like it could be an abuse of DM trust. After all, the players sitting around the table have to trust each other than they're all there to have a good time. If the DM starts saying "I will take away your character if I feel it appropriate," it is basically saying that the DM doesn't trust the players to act appropriately.

I think it would be fine if the DM had some pretty clear-cut rules about the situation. For example, if it was a very basic kick-in-the-door style of game, then the DM would be justified in saying that any party backstabbing, PKing, or stealing from party members would turn the character into a NPC under the DM's control. Assuming that is the game the players want, that is a perfectly fine.

However, outside that sort of a situation - that is, outside the DM stopping actions that the players don't want to see - it really isn't appropriate.

Second, what alignment would you give a character who uses evil means to accomplish good deeds? Someone who is working for the greater good and is kind and compassionate, but is willing to get their hands dirty and employ whatever means are necessary to prevent a greater evil if they can't find another way.

If you are chopping up babies to feed the homeless, then yes, you are doing the good deed of feeding the homeless. But you are also chopping up babies as a result. The result of a good and an evil tend to balance out as evil, all things being equal.

Yes, there will be situations where doing some minor evil (stealing from the large treasury) for some large good (feeding the populace) averages out as a good deed overall. And there will be situations where some evil must be done in order to allow a good situation to happen - perhaps abandoning the town next to the demon horde you just summoned, in order to survive and have time to banish them back. However, in a lot of these situations, a good-aligned character will be looking for some sort of penance or atonement for their deed. After all, while they may have accomplished some sort of necessary good in their task, there was still some evil done by their hand in the process. "Good" could, perhaps, be seen as a desire to make up for past misdeeds, rather than just trying not to in the future.

(And yes, a character can take penance without being a Paladin/Cleric/etc. A soldier who takes the time to serve as guard duty in towns they visit, to make up for the one village lost to orc raids because of past negligence, would be a character taking penance for their past actions.)

Third, can one commit evil actions through negligence? For example, my players often put innocent lives at risk by using them as bait, being careless about collateral damage, shooting first and asking questions later, etc. Now, I don't play with alignment, but if I did would getting innocent civilians killed due to recklessness and lack of foresight be an evil act?

The general answer is "no." However, that tends to assume that there was no responsibility from the character, or that the character did not cause the situation in some way. A heroic party that arrives at a village too late to stop it from being destroyed by an undead horde did not partake of an evil act; the undead were not caused by the party (hopefully). A senator who has taken money under-the-table from a necromancer cult which raised the undead horde would be an evil situation - the senator is not reasonably assumed to stop the horde themselves, but giving the necromancers the ability to do so does make them responsible. And with the example from above, if a soldier who was supposed to be defending or scouting against a dangerous enemy and instead went off and got drunk - thus letting the enemy through without warning and allowing a village to be destroyed - was a cause of its destruction and it was an evil act.

[jaydubs]

So, last night my GM made an announcement that if a player character ever committed an "evil act" they would be taken away from the controlling player. That got me thinking about some things I have been musing for some time.

First, is this an abuse of DM powers? I know the RPGA had the same policy, and it seems pretty standard for DMs to state up front "no evil characters", but is it actually appropriate to yank away a character from their owning player because they don't behave? Particularly if it is only a single event, or one which falls into a grey area.

No. It's the GM deciding to run a restrictive game. It's something that I'd talk to the GM about, and something I might leave a game over. But I wouldn't call it abusive.

To me, abusive means it's something the GM should basically never do. And since I can't find anything inherently wrong with running a "no evil" game, or to enforce a stated rule strictly, I don't find it abusive. Again, I personally wouldn't play in such a campaign.

Second, what alignment would you give a character who uses evil means to accomplish good deeds? Someone who is working for the greater good and is kind and compassionate, but is willing to get their hands dirty and employ whatever means are necessary to prevent a greater evil if they can't find another way.

There's a difference between a character who uses evil means when he simply thinks it's the most effective solution, and a character who only uses evil means rarely or when there's no other choice. I'd call the former neutral, and the latter good.

A vigilante who frequently tortures people to protect his community, accepting the risk he'll harm innocents in the process because it seems like the most efficient solution, is neutral. Someone who kills an innocent, because he knows beyond the shadow of a doubt that doing so is the only way to save many more lives, may still be good.

Third, can one commit evil actions through negligence? For example, my players often put innocent lives at risk by using them as bait, being careless about collateral damage, shooting first and asking questions later, etc. Now, I don't play with alignment, but if I did would getting innocent civilians killed due to recklessness and lack of foresight be an evil act?

To me, yes. But only if the person in question has the capacity to understand the risk, but chooses to not take precautions. Someone (or something) too stupid to understand the risk is not evil.

For instance, say a man creates a highly explosive magical device. He leaves it in the middle of a busy street. He doesn't intend to hurt anyone, but he leaves it there because he's lazy. To me, that's an evil act.

A monkey finds a highly explosive magical device. He has no idea what it is. He leaves it in the middle of a busy street. Not evil, because he lacks the capacity to understand the risk.

[Wardog]

1. It's no worse than saying becoming undead automatically makes you an NPC. The DM is being straight with you from the beginning that evil PCs aren't acceptable and this will have consequences. As long as the DM tells you before the game starts what s/he wants from it and how things will be handled, everything's fine. You can make your own decisions ahead of time if you want to play in it or not. Perfectly within his rights and the only legitimate complaint you can make is 'I don't want that'.

I'm not sure about that.

"Becoming undead" usually requires somthing significant happening to you, which you should be able to mitigate against. Also, fluff-wise, its justifiable in that becoming undead means you are no longer you any more. (You died, and then were turned into a monster).

In contrast, this isn't just a ban on evil players, its a ban on evil acts - with punishments that (as presented) don't make sense in terms of fluff.

What consititutes an "evil act" is - as a million alignment argumnets have shown - not something that everyone agrees on. But it is something that many people/characters may end up commiting, due to desparation, misunderstanding, or the DM having a different idea of what constitutes "evil". Furtehrmore, its is something that would realistically have realistic consequences (e.g. having police/guards/bountyhunters sent after you, people avoiding you, losing powers (if you are a Paladin), etc. And those are all things that someone would have to deal with (seek forgiveness / stand trial / avoid capture) in ways that could make for an interesting game or story. "You cease to exist" or "you no longer have control of your character" do not.


And based on Talakeal's previous posts, I dread to think what his DM would class as an "Evil act".

(Taking away a character could be acceptable in the case of disruptive players who want to murder all the NPCs everyone rather than playing the story as intended, but IMO its silly as a punishment for a single evil act. Especially as the former is punishing the player for the player being a jerk, while the latter is punishing the player for the character doing something wrong).

[Sith_Happens]

So, last night my GM made an announcement that if a player character ever committed an "evil act" they would be taken away from the controlling player. That got me thinking about some things I have been musing for some time.

First, is this an abuse of DM powers? I know the RPGA had the same policy, and it seems pretty standard for DMs to state up front "no evil characters", but is it actually appropriate to yank away a character from their owning player because they don't behave? Particularly if it is only a single event, or one which falls into a grey area.

Yes and no, respectively. Seriously, that is a stupid, ***hole idea.

Second, what alignment would you give a character who uses evil means to accomplish good deeds? Someone who is working for the greater good and is kind and compassionate, but is willing to get their hands dirty and employ whatever means are necessary to prevent a greater evil if they can't find another way.

Evil. Alignment, for the most part, is about what you do, not why you do it.

Third, can one commit evil actions through negligence?

Definitely, though "can" does not mean "always."

For example, my players often put innocent lives at risk by using them as bait, being careless about collateral damage, shooting first and asking questions later, etc. Now, I don't play with alignment, but if I did would getting innocent civilians killed due to recklessness and lack of foresight be an evil act?

In general, it depends upon how reckless they were being and how much foresight they could reasonably have been expected to have. In these specific examples, yes.

[Yora]

Since an evil act is whatever the GM decides it is, it really sounds like the GM simply wants everyone to play like he wants them to. Doesn't really sound like a campaign worth playing.

[goto124]

How is this different from the many normal DMs who do good-only campaigns? Isn't a ban on evil a pretty common thing?

How well does the DM know his/her players, and vice versa? Strangers, friends, somewhere in between? It would be understandable in the case of strangers.

Talakeal, what do you know about this DM?

[Keltest]

How is this different from the many normal DMs who do good-only campaigns? Isn't a ban on evil a pretty common thing?

How well does the DM know his/her players, and vice versa? Strangers, friends, somewhere in between? It would be understandable in the case of strangers.

Talakeal, what do you know about this DM?

most DMs that I know of will not just yank your character sheet away from when whenever you d vaguely defined "evil" act. A ban on evil characters is one thing, but lots of players will occasionally delve into the darkness a little bit, especially if theyre playing Neutral characters, for one reason or another.

[Hawkstar]

So, last night my GM made an announcement that if a player character ever committed an "evil act" they would be taken away from the controlling player. That got me thinking about some things I have been musing for some time.

First, is this an abuse of DM powers? I know the RPGA had the same policy, and it seems pretty standard for DMs to state up front "no evil characters", but is it actually appropriate to yank away a character from their owning player because they don't behave? Particularly if it is only a single event, or one which falls into a grey area.

It depends on where he's coming from, really. With a sane DM, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and take it as intent of 'I am not interested in running a game of Bastards". Hopefully, grey/questionable actions are exempt. (Of course, I'd ask "Is torching 10-year-old orphans willing, able, and trying to kill us evil? Because that's something that actually came up in one of my games - we were attacked by an armed gang of street rats, and my Blaster Sorcerer does not have a 'stun' setting)

However, this is your DM and gaming group, and I think the actual answer is "The only rules are 'Do you accept the insanity that's been ordained for you to suffer at all times, or do you try to get out?"

Second, what alignment would you give a character who uses evil means to accomplish good deeds? Someone who is working for the greater good and is kind and compassionate, but is willing to get their hands dirty and employ whatever means are necessary to prevent a greater evil if they can't find another way.

Neutral at worst. The Grey Guard in D&D 3.5 is all about doing this, and must maintain a Lawful Good alignment. Some people get overworked up about Champions of Ruin's inclusion of "Well-intentioned Extremist" headline as 'Type of Evil Hero" (Just as they get worked up over "Lying" being a headline in "Evil Acts"), but the actual text of that sourcebook indicates that they're only truly Evil if the acts don't Balance Out in some manner. They are, however, barred from being "Exalted Good", though.

Third, can one commit evil actions through negligence? For example, my players often put innocent lives at risk by using them as bait, being careless about collateral damage, shooting first and asking questions later, etc. Now, I don't play with alignment, but if I did would getting innocent civilians killed due to recklessness and lack of foresight be an evil act?

Very possibly the bait one, especially putting unwilling lives at risk by using them as bait.

[Honest Tiefling]

Why do I get the feeling this DM has played through a campaign where the paladin tried to force themselves onto people after baby murdering or the rogue tried to justify why killing their entire party was well within their rights as a chaotic neutral person? I really wonder if the reaction is one of a DM being too controlling, or a DM having a knee-jerk reaction to some really questionable interpretations of alignment?

I must also agree to speak with the DM. Ask them what extent the evil act must be. If they are talking about taking characters for slaughtering people to make a summoning circle to bring Pazuzu into the world, okay, maybe they just need to have some time to relax. If things like intimidation, theft or lying are all on the table, I'd bail as fast as my pudgy legs could take me as none of those are strictly speaking, evil in the right circumstance.

I would also try to convince him that it is not fun for anyone to have this dangling over their head, that the rule should be discussion, not outright taking the character away. Maybe the evil act can be worked into the story, depending on why and what is done. Maybe it could be done without being too disruptive to the group's enjoyment.

I'd also ask the why of the rule, to better understand the guy. Maybe it is to stop random murderhoboing for all we know and the guy got worked up and said something a little silly.

[goto124]

Meanwhile, we'll hope that Talakeal has a sane DM.

[Honest Tiefling]

Goodness knows that I've made similar threats to players after they refuse to understand why insulting people doesn't get them on your side or have groped powerful fey. I think I did actually make a similar threat after a player indicated that they wanted to destroy the souls of their family.

[Nightcanon]

Depends a bit on the nature of the campaign, I think. If it's old school Team Good vs Team Evil and you're constantly fighting against an Evil enemy that fights to the death, and he's just wanting to rule out PvP or attacks on NPCs when you head back to town to heal and resupply that's one thing; if every orc horde you fight has an attached baggage train composed of mourning women and orc children who run up to you and kick your shins because "you murdered my daddy, you speciesist" and every fight against human cultists ends with half of them throwing down weapons and begging for mercy when you're in a race with the BBEG and don't have time to deal with prisoners according to the Silverymoon Convention then that's another.

[Talakeal]

Meanwhile, we'll hope that Talakeal has a sane DM.

Your going to be hoping a long time for that one

[Maglubiyet]

So, last night my GM made an announcement that if a player character ever committed an "evil act" they would be taken away from the controlling player. That got me thinking about some things I have been musing for some time.

First, is this an abuse of DM powers?

Taking away a character is an evil act. Any GM who does this is considered a Fallen GM and should have his campaign taken over by a Good or Neutral player. Evil GM'ing is strictly forbidden in RAI.

The GM can resume his campaign if he completes a quest to Atone for his evil deeds -- perhaps sending him out to get pizza or something.

[D+1]

So, last night my GM made an announcement that if a player character ever committed an "evil act" they would be taken away from the controlling player. That got me thinking about some things I have been musing for some time.

First, is this an abuse of DM powers? I know the RPGA had the same policy, and it seems pretty standard for DMs to state up front "no evil characters", but is it actually appropriate to yank away a character from their owning player because they don't behave? Particularly if it is only a single event, or one which falls into a grey area.

It's not an abuse of DM powers because no version of the game gives the DM that power in the first place. They can kill PC's, they can temporarily take control of their actions through spell effects, or curses like lycanthropy, or they can turn them into NPC's such as perhaps by becoming a vampire. But not because they did something evil. This is a power the DM has given to himself. It is abusive - especially without A LOT of explanation to players WHY doing something evil should mean they lose their PC, or whether they could ever get their PC back, or most important of all - EXACTLY what does the DM consider to be evil and does the DM think he gets to spring this on players without any warning, or how much warning does he intend to give?

95% of the time (or more) I would think that this is not even going to EVER be an issue that comes up with reasonable players. They're not generally interested in trying to do evil and aren't likely to stumble into deeds so questionable that they might be evil. But this is a HUGE RED FLAG that the DM has a really gigantic issue with something and he's going to be a colossal jerk about it to make it not happen. This is a game-breaker. Not just because of this one rule but because it indicates that the DM thinks that he gets to be an all-controlling wanker who always gets his way and never even has to think of alternative points of view. You need to talk to the DM IMMEDIATELY and get to the bottom of this - and, of course tell him that he DOES NOT get to take away your PC without better justification than that.

Second, what alignment would you give a character who uses evil means to accomplish good deeds? Someone who is working for the greater good and is kind and compassionate, but is willing to get their hands dirty and employ whatever means are necessary to prevent a greater evil if they can't find another way.

Doing evil IS evil. "The ends justifies any means," is an EXCUSE to be evil - even if your supposed goal is making things better. It's a convenience to just do something awful because you know it's easy and will work. See the movie Serenity and the character of "The Operative". He admits he's a monster who does horrible things, but he is convinced that it's good and necessary in order for other people to live in a perfect world. But that means he does EVIL things and therefore IS EVIL. He simply bought into the convenient excuse that the ends justifies the means; even when the means involves killing innocent people, torturing them, and following the orders of evil men, because it will SUPPOSEDLY lead to a better world that makes it okay. It doesn't.

Third, can one commit evil actions through negligence? For example, my players often put innocent lives at risk by using them as bait, being careless about collateral damage, shooting first and asking questions later, etc. Now, I don't play with alignment, but if I did would getting innocent civilians killed due to recklessness and lack of foresight be an evil act?

No it would be generally classified as a very chaotic act. The goal is not to get the innocent killed. That would be evil. But putting them at risk to their very lives as a matter of course is VERY close to it. It is not the sort of thing done by good-aligned and lawful-aligned characters. Doing it regularly means lawful characters become neutral at best and more likely chaotic, and good characters become neutral at best. But it also matters how the characters feel about the results of their actions. If you knowingly, and willingly put innocent people in that position and DON'T CARE if they get hurt or killed as a result, that's evil.

Now there's also such a thing as making HONEST mistakes. Good characters are allowed to commit errors. Being good doesn't mean you're perfect - it means you TRY TO BE; that you WANT to be and do better. Getting innocent people hurt and killed because you were stupid, or simply made a mistake, or otherwise merely failed at something, that doesn't make the character evil. If you're lawful and good you feel bad about being dumb, incompetent or unlucky, and you try not to let it happen again. If you're neutral you say that those are just the breaks and you don't feel too bad because it wasn't really your fault. If you're evil then you're fine with the outcome; lawful evil and it was probably your plan all along; chaotic evil and you really enjoy how amusingly cruel the universe can be and wouldn't it be fun to see that again?

[Talakeal]

Doing evil IS evil. "The ends justifies any means," is an EXCUSE to be evil - even if your supposed goal is making things better. It's a convenience to just do something awful because you know it's easy and will work. See the movie Serenity and the character of "The Operative". He admits he's a monster who does horrible things, but he is convinced that it's good and necessary in order for other people to live in a perfect world. But that means he does EVIL things and therefore IS EVIL. He simply bought into the convenient excuse that the ends justifies the means; even when the means involves killing innocent people, torturing them, and following the orders of evil men, because it will SUPPOSEDLY lead to a better world that makes it okay. It doesn't.

First, thank you for your response. It is well thought out and insightful.

But, I think you are making a lot of assumptions and using loaded language.

For example, you assume that he is using "convenient excuses that will supposedly lead to a better world."

What if it was making "Very difficult and regrettable sacrifices that will certainly lead to a better world."

This gets even more difficulty in a game like D&D which labels things objectively evil regardless of context.

Using a tranquilizer dart on a rampaging animal to protect people without killing the animal is evil. Stabbing the BBEG with his own unholy sword is evil. Summoning a fiendish animal to pull people from a burning building is evil. Animating the corpse of a knight who failed in his duty and giving him one last chance to protect his charge when all other defenses have failed is evil. Using deathwatch after an explosion to see who to heal first is evil. Allying the the Tanari to stop the Baatezu from taking over the world because it would be mutually beneficial for both mortals and Tanari to not give the Baatezu another foothold is evil. And so on...

This is without even getting into questions of when it is ok to kill someone. Whether or not Batman is complicit in the Joker's crimes because he refuses to put him down for good is an old debate, and I don't think there is a clearly right or wrong answer. It is even weirder in D&D by RAW, because killing is sometimes evil, and other times it is instead evil to show mercy.

Also, sometimes it isn't about "easy" but about "risky". For example, say there is someone who is extremely dangerous. Maybe they carry a deadly disease, or a curse, or a dark secret, or have uncontrollable powers like the child in "It's a Good Life". Just killing them would be easy, sure. And it would also be evil. But, in this scenario, imagine the risk. The harder road is likely to fail, and the consequences of failure are, in this case, so much worse than those of taking the easy way out, that it would be flat out foolish to try, regardless of morality.


To use another example, in a recent game we had a fairly traditional LoTR style plot to use a Macguffin to kill the BBEG while he is weakened because we have no chance of defeating him at full power. My character refused, as she declared that it was cowardly and dishonorable and tantamount to murder, and that she was a virtuous warrior, not a craven assassin. Now, in this case I certainly not looking for an excuse to take the easy way out; but I am being stupid and reckless for the sake of my own pride, and being willing to put millions of innocent lives at risk just to ease my pride and conscience does not seem to be the "right" answer.

[Cluedrew]

Meanwhile, we'll hope that Talakeal has a sane DM.

I laughed when I read this... which makes me feel sorry for Talakeal.

... Any GM who does this is considered a Fallen GM and should have his campaign taken over by a Good or Neutral player. ...

And this one made me grin.

"The ends justifies any means,"

With the word any yes it does become something twisted. I disagree that "the ends justifies the means" is always an excuse for every pair of ends and means. Sometimes the good really does out weigh the bad and if there is a lack of other options that are less evil then it can be justified. Can be.

[Banjoman42]

Is your DM secretly Miko, by chance?
That's DM abuse if I've ever seen it.
As for the second question, Think of it this way. The Lawful evil character believes that by uniting everyone he can create a better world. This is certainly a decent goal, but the LE is willing to a) Kill enemies of the state b) go to war with neighboring kingdoms and c) assassinate political enemies, all to achieve this goal. This makes the goal very not worth it, and just makes everything worse.
There is some wonky logic behind some evil acts (such as tranquilizer poison and summoning controllable fiends being evil), but undead are evil usually because the soul of the person of is twisted in the creation process.

[BWR]

First, thank you for your response. It is well thought out and insightful.

But, I think you are making a lot of assumptions and using loaded language.

For example, you assume that he is using "convenient excuses that will supposedly lead to a better world."

What if it was making "Very difficult and regrettable sacrifices that will certainly lead to a better world."

This gets even more difficulty in a game like D&D which labels things objectively evil regardless of context.

You were the one who stated that you would be using evil actions - how is using your own admission 'loaded language'?
In most D&D worlds and by default (which is the only thing we can argue based on because we don't know how your DM will handle things) some actions are inherently evil and you are doing something evil no matter what excuse you use. Never mind greater good arguments or "it was the only thing I could do" it's evil and what you consider necessity does not alter that. The very fact that you bring up these sorts of arguments indicates that your characters will fall into the 'road to Hell is paved with good intentions' trap. Context doesn't matter in the vast majority of cases. Doing evil is doing evil.

Using a tranquilizer dart on a rampaging animal to protect people without killing the animal is evil.

huh? Technically it's "Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing the opponent. The only acceptable poison for good characters to use is the oil of taggit whichc does no damage but causes unconsciousness" BoED p. 34.
So, No, poisons are not inherently evil, it is causing undue suffering that is.

Stabbing the BBEG with his own unholy sword is evil.

I don't believe wielding an evil weapon is actually enough to become evil unless you make a habit of it or use evil powers. At least, I cannot find anywhere that says doing this is an evil act.

Summoning a fiendish animal to pull people from a burning building is evil. .

Again you fall prey to 'good intentions'. It doesn't matter what the goal is, you are performing an evil act and increasing the general evilness in the multiverse.

Animating the corpse of a knight who failed in his duty and giving him one last chance to protect his charge when all other defenses have failed is evil.

Yup. You are increasing the evil in the multiverse by creating a foul mockery of life. 'good intentions'. Now, animating the dead was not a per def evil act in 2e, so times have changed. You may want to find out if your DM considers all undead spawn of evil by nature or if they can be neutral or even good.

Using deathwatch after an explosion to see who to heal first is evil..

I agree that one is stupid. PF fixed it as did many house rules. Still, if you want to go by the RAW...
Ask your DM.

Allying the the Tanari to stop the Baatezu from taking over the world because it would be mutually beneficial for both mortals and Tanari to not give the Baatezu another foothold is evil. And so on...
.

Allying with fiends is never a good idea, no matter how well your immediate goals my align. Frankly, you're effing stupid if you go along with them without expecting to get screwed over. 'Good intentions'.

This is without even getting into questions of when it is ok to kill someone. Whether or not Batman is complicit in the Joker's crimes because he refuses to put him down for good is an old debate, and I don't think there is a clearly right or wrong answer. It is even weirder in D&D by RAW, because killing is sometimes evil, and other times it is instead evil to show mercy.
.

D&D operates on the idea that the morality of killing is basically neutral, with any tip either side depending on the motive and the nature of the victim (and possibly the method). Killing the invading horder of fiends is a good act. Killing the innocent kids in the Happy Puppy and Kitten Orphanage is an evil act. Mercy is nice but sometimes it just doesn't work out well for people. Mercy is one of those 'generally good' things that doesn't always work.

Also, sometimes it isn't about "easy" but about "risky". For example, say there is someone who is extremely dangerous. Maybe they carry a deadly disease, or a curse, or a dark secret, or have uncontrollable powers like the child in "It's a Good Life". Just killing them would be easy, sure. And it would also be evil. But, in this scenario, imagine the risk. The harder road is likely to fail, and the consequences of failure are, in this case, so much worse than those of taking the easy way out, that it would be flat out foolish to try, regardless of morality.

Again, 'good intentions' and 'greater good'. I suppose you could argue that these are neutral acts rather than evil, what with self-defense, but it really depends on the situation. Still, let's assume it's an evil act. Sometimes it seems like there are no right choices but that's part of being Good. It isn't always easy, it isn't always nice or even possible to always be good. It's an ideal to strive towards. Evil is easy. Good is hard. True Good heroes are about making the hard choices and actually pulling off being better than average people and not just whine about 'it was so difficult to do it another way'.

To use another example, in a recent game we had a fairly traditional LoTR style plot to use a Macguffin to kill the BBEG while he is weakened because we have no chance of defeating him at full power. My character refused, as she declared that it was cowardly and dishonorable and tantamount to murder, and that she was a virtuous warrior, not a craven assassin. Now, in this case I certainly not looking for an excuse to take the easy way out; but I am being stupid and reckless for the sake of my own pride, and being willing to put millions of innocent lives at risk just to ease my pride and conscience does not seem to be the "right" answer.

Depends on the alignment system you have. If the alignment system does say that stealing is always wrong, if killing people at less than full power is wrong, then you did the right thing. you are not responsible for the actions of the enemy, however heinous. If the alignment system says that stealing is ok, at least in this situation, and killing weakened enemies is ok, then you were prideful and possibly evil.

This is the problem I've noticed with a lot if people: they get too focused on their own personal feelings on morality that they can't seem to grasp that an artificial morality for a game might treat things a bit differently. You don't have to think the game morality as acceptable IRL. You don't even have to like it for the game world, but once it has been established as valid for the game, complainints are pointless.

@Wardog.
I don't really see how becoming undead after being killed by undead is any easier to mitigate than performing an evil act in this case, since you can simply ask the DM "Is X evil?". If the DM refuses to answer then he's most likely being an ******** out to 'get' the players. If the DM answers questions about good vs. evil in the game so the players and PCs know what to do, it's fine. If the DM refuses to answer but was upfront about refusal to answer before the game starts, then the players have no one to blame but themselves.

[Cealocanth]

So, last night my GM made an announcement that if a player character ever committed an "evil act" they would be taken away from the controlling player. That got me thinking about some things I have been musing for some time.

First, is this an abuse of DM powers? I know the RPGA had the same policy, and it seems pretty standard for DMs to state up front "no evil characters", but is it actually appropriate to yank away a character from their owning player because they don't behave? Particularly if it is only a single event, or one which falls into a grey area.

Second, what alignment would you give a character who uses evil means to accomplish good deeds? Someone who is working for the greater good and is kind and compassionate, but is willing to get their hands dirty and employ whatever means are necessary to prevent a greater evil if they can't find another way.

Third, can one commit evil actions through negligence? For example, my players often put innocent lives at risk by using them as bait, being careless about collateral damage, shooting first and asking questions later, etc. Now, I don't play with alignment, but if I did would getting innocent civilians killed due to recklessness and lack of foresight be an evil act?

1. This isn't actually an abuse of power, technically, but you sh(ould ask the GM if he has a good reason for it. In some campaign settings there may be some sort of all-encompassing evil power that inevitably controls all evil characters in the world, and if a player turns out to be evil then he is under GM control. If there is a legitimate, story-driven reason for it, then it's really no different than taking control of a character after he's willingly allowed himself to be possessed by a demon or something. Judging by the way that this post is written, the reason given may be "because I'm the GM and I don't want any evil characters in my game," but there could be a more legitimate reason behind it. Granted, it is a poor game design choice, but that's not really the question here.

2. Evil. In most games (and in real life, to a certain extent), everyone is evil until proven good. Without going into IRL religion too far, one can compare the divine planes of the D&D universe. Why are there so many more damned souls in the 9 Hells (mostly as those soul-worm things in 4e lore) than souls in the 7 Heavens? It's because in Western tradition, people are inherently evil and must to be taught to be good. It doesn't matter what your goals are, if you commit evil in the process of doing so, then you're considered evil. To take a few examples from the clearest examples of the good and evil dichotomy in modern culture - super heroes and villains -: Mr. Freeze is evil because he is willing to steal and kill in the good attempt to save his wife, Nora. The Joker is evil because he is willing to murder, torture, steal, kill, and commit even further vile acts even though he works toward what he sees as a better society. Lex Luthor is evil because he lacks any sanctity for human life even though his overarching goals is to create an independent and prosperous humanity. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" - Common Proverb

3. Yes and no. Alignment is about choice, not about outcome. If a hero knows that a town of innocent civilians will be destroyed by rampaging undead without his help, and instead chooses to ignore that and continue frolicking at the bar, then that choice to do nothing is an evil act. If a hero is busy frolicking at a bar and somewhere on the other side of the world a family he had never met nor heard of dies of starvation, then its not evil because he couldn't have known and by extension done anything about it. The problem where this, and the alignment system as a whole, is what is considered an evil act if you have to choose the lesser of two evils. Say a player in your campaign setting is put in a situation where the rest of the party is being killed in a room filled with poison gas, but at the same time, two-hundred villagers are suffocating by the same gas in a different room. Said player has a choice to divert the flow of gas and kill one of the two chambers faster, but save another. Technically either choice would be evil in the alignment system, but this is a situation where there exists no 'good' choice to make. Even in this case, though, inaction is still more evil than the other two choices because it is the choice to remove burden of choice off of the player and kill everyone else.

In other words, good and evil are a highly nuanced dichotomy that, no matter how hard one may try, cannot be bound together into a succinct 9 category alignment system. Evil stretches from as far as "racial genocide" to "ignoring a homeless person". Good stretches as far from "putting a penny in the 'give a penny jar" to "devoted entire life to curing cancer." There are people who have rightly spent their entire lives contemplating this issue, and we, as a society, haven't really made much progress in this manner in the thousands of years we have been trying to solve it.

[Hawkstar]

You were the one who stated that you would be using evil actions - how is using your own admission 'loaded language'?
In most D&D worlds and by default (which is the only thing we can argue based on because we don't know how your DM will handle things) some actions are inherently evil and you are doing something evil no matter what excuse you use. Never mind greater good arguments or "it was the only thing I could do" it's evil and what you consider necessity does not alter that. The very fact that you bring up these sorts of arguments indicates that your characters will fall into the 'road to Hell is paved with good intentions' trap. Context doesn't matter in the vast majority of cases. Doing evil is doing evil.


huh? Technically it's "Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing the opponent. The only acceptable poison for good characters to use is the oil of taggit whichc does no damage but causes unconsciousness" BoED p. 34.
So, No, poisons are not inherently evil, it is causing undue suffering that is.

But what makes the suffering "Undue"? Sometimes, the suffering is necessary, such as strength- or dex-draining someone to weaken them into a point of complicency, or Int-damaging a mage to keep them from casting for a long while, or Con-damaging someone to kill them quickly.

Again you fall prey to 'good intentions'. It doesn't matter what the goal is, you are performing an evil act and increasing the general evilness in the multiverse.

Yup. You are increasing the evil in the multiverse by creating a foul mockery of life. 'good intentions'. Now, animating the dead was not a per def evil act in 2e, so times have changed. You may want to find out if your DM considers all undead spawn of evil by nature or if they can be neutral or even good.

You're also increasing the tangible Good in the world through your actions as well - by rescuing people, you restore trust, hope, and other beneficial things, which feed into raising the Cosmic Good of the world. The existence of the cosmic levels of Good and Evil objectively allow for Ends to Justify the means - if an action increases the amount of Cosmic Good in the universe far more than the amount of Cosmic Evil in the universe, it is unequivocally a Good act (But it bars you from Exalted status).

Dread Necromancers can be Nonevil by RAW and RAI, meaning not all manipulation of Negative Energy forces you to be Evil.
By RAW and RAI Neutral Clerics can also cast Evil spells and channel Negative Energy.
Malconvokers channel demons, and are Good by RAW.

[Cluedrew]

Spoiler: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. But so is the road to heaven.

Show

To explain, most of the people talked about don't actually use evil means to accomplish good. They use evil means to accomplish evil (or nothing) with internal justification. That is they are fooling themselves that this will work, or are just insane. A good rule of thumb is if the person is enjoying it, they are probably evil, if it makes them uncomfortable or regretful every time, they are probably good.

[Talakeal]

stuff.

I didn't say the term "evil" was loaded. I was more talking about terms like "excuses" "easy way out" and "supposed".

My problem is that when I read the alignment sections of the DMG the descriptions of my character always end up "good" yet my character's actions always peg them as "evil". It leaves me very confused.

Also, a lot of the things that are labeled as "always evil" despite being beneficial makes no sense. Summoning a demon and forcing him to do good deeds for 24 hours (which also has the effect of stopping him from doing whatever evil he would normally do in those 24) is labeled as an always evil action.

In this case, I presume, the universe will, somehow, karmic lash out and cause senseless evil and suffering in the world. That is what the BoED and BoVD imply, but if you actually look at it, it makes no sense. Why do good actions not have the same effect? Why do the demons themselves, knowing that doing "evil deeds" makes them stronger actually pursue their goals rather than sitting around animating zombies, summoning one another, and coating their weapons with poison? It paints the picture of a cosmos that is totally out of balance and in which human free will is more or less meaningless as the consequences are never natural and there is a pre ordained right and wrong answer to every dilemma.

And of course, the fact that an act is always as evil as its worst component means you have an innately unjust cosmos where everyone is doomed. For example: Summon a demon to do a good deed = evil. Summon an angel to do an evil deed = evil. Evil acts beget more evil. Therefore this cosmos was damned from the get go and the D&D cosmology is even bleaker than that of Warhammer.


The allying with a demon example is actually pulled from a campaign I ran. The players were attempting to stop a devilish invasion that would plunge the entire world under Baatezu control. The players came across a Marilith that had been bound to service by an evil wizard. They killed the wizard, and rather than attacking them the Marilith offered to help the party. She wasn't doing this to be nice, she was doing it because it was in her best interests as her primary goal was to win the blood war and the baatezu conquering an influential prime material world and getting access to all the magic and souls and other resources that represented would be a major boon to them.
The players, though, refused her service and killed her, citing the BoED's prohibition against good characters working with fiends.
I was ok with that, as that was there decision and I let my players make their own moral choices.

But I am wondering, what would you have done if you were running that scenario?

Would you have simply had the Marilith be too caught up in her CE nature to help the players even when it is in her own best interest? Betraying them at a crucial moment despite the fact that doing so gains her nothing and indeed could cost her everything?
Or, would you simply have the universal "anti-karma" force say "Whelp, you saved the world, but you did it using an evil ally, so we can't let that have positive consequences. We are going to alter the universal fabric of good and evil so that the devils can take over another world of equal value without a fight!"

[Maglubiyet]

But I am wondering, what would you have done if you were running that scenario?

Would you have simply had the Marilith be too caught up in her CE nature to help the players even when it is in her own best interest? Betraying them at a crucial moment despite the fact that doing so gains her nothing and indeed could cost her everything?
Or, would you simply have the universal "anti-karma" force say "Whelp, you saved the world, but you did it using an evil ally, so we can't let that have positive consequences. We are going to alter the universal fabric of good and evil so that the devils can take over another world of equal value without a fight!"

I think a demon just might be unpredictable enough to sabotage a mission when the stakes are "merely" a world. At the very least it would probably cause some heartache along the way that the PC's would be responsible for.

If, on the other hand, the players were presented with a potential alliance with a devil to halt a demonic invasion, that might be harder to pass up.

The universal karma question is irrelevant from an individual's perspective.

[Cluedrew]

But I am wondering, what would you have done if you were running that scenario?

Probably what you did, let the characters make a decision.

Personally, although I like the alignment system {Gasp} I do feel that its currant form is a case of too many cooks in the kitchen. I use a "refurbished" alignment system myself, and I stripped out most of the absolute statements. Yes poison is not as good or honorable as a straight up duel, but if no one can match the Black Knight of Slaughter in combat, it is better than letting her roam free.

So in this example teaming up with the Marilith would only have the cost of having a devil on your side. Who might fight with you to the end but would probably be a lot less concerned about civilian casualties and be constantly on the lookout for things she can do for her and her side.

In short, things should be labelled evil because they are amoral, not the other way around.

[zinycor]

1: It's totally fine if this os known before hand by all players and n the game there aren't actual temptations for the players to do evil acts, with this I mean hat there will not be chances to ally with the evil people or that any NPC will suggest making a deal or soemthing like that.

This kind of scenario works nicely if you are working on an existing module, where you can anticipate how the NPCs will react and every player knows thaat doing blatantly evil acts (Such as burning the town, or betraying the party) would just slow the game.

If your game is centered about moral choices then it's absolutely idiotic to have evil forbiden

2: Evil, though I will discuss with the player before hand what are the acts that I find that are blatantly evil before hand. Example: If I think summoning devils into the material plane is innerently evil, it's my duty to mke the player know so.

3: They don't become evil through real negligence, that means they don't become evil if they truly didn't expect that certains actions would result badly. If the characters use civilians as bait, then that's evil.