Can Good And Evil Characters Get Along?

[Mastikator]

I'm playing… the girlfriend from "the waterboy". I'll happily kill anyone who in any way disadvantages anyone I care about.

I'm in the party, I care about the party. Someone is in your way; I ask, "want me to kill them for you?". You say "no", I don't kill them.

And so I'm… somehow *not* psychotic evil, just because I care about your happiness?

Cool strawman. Happily killing as a first resort to "disadvantage" is psychotically evil. That's capital E Evil.

The context you chose ignored here was that in the short term good and evil can co-exist. But not in the long term without one of them moving their alignment.

What you describe is a short term situation. What I was taking about was a long term situation. These are not the same.

A long term version of your strawman would be if the waterboy girlfriend asks "want me to kill them for you" and you say "no" and then you never kill anyone ever again. That's less evil. See how it makes sense if you just don't strawman someone?

[OldTrees1]

Cool strawman. Happily killing as a first resort to "disadvantage" is psychotically evil. That's capital E Evil.

The context you chose ignored here was that in the short term good and evil can co-exist. But not in the long term without one of them moving their alignment.

What you describe is a short term situation. What I was taking about was a long term situation. These are not the same.

A long term version of your strawman would be if the waterboy girlfriend asks "want me to kill them for you" and you say "no" and then you never kill anyone ever again. That's less evil. See how it makes sense if you just don't strawman someone?

Um, while they did exaggerate your claim, their psycho is within the bounds of my generic example.

1) Wait, so they are "capital E Evil" and "less evil" at the same time? They are still happy to kill as a first resort to their partner being "disadvantaged". Hmm tangent*

2) I would point out that we can't assume that the psycho never kills again. They just don't do so in this type of circumstance. One of my main points to Jason was that characters can have morally significant behaviour that is outside of the multiple character conflicts. It seems you understand this can't be assumed, because you added the assumption as a qualifier.

3) Whether either side needs to move their alignment in the long term is currently being debated. I don't think it is unreasonable for quertus to not presume that premise. I am not presuming that premise either, they already could have been at a stable long term compromise.



* An interesting side thought with only tangential relevance. It might be an interesting but I did not think it worth a subthread.

When using descriptive alignment, we could be doing one of 2 things. In both cases we are assigning the alignment based upon the characterization of the character rather than vice versa. However we could be examining the past or the present. If we only consider past intent/action/consequence we get a picture of who they were. To consider the present we can consider how they would act now in various possible circumstances. These methods would say different things about this psycho. The past metric might see no murders. The present metric would still observe the psycho is willing to murder whenever their partner fails to say "no". The line gets blurry when we use a moral theory that considers intent to also be morally significant, but it seems like you were using an action or consequence based moral theory.

[Mastikator]

Um, while they did exaggerate your claim, their psycho is within the bounds of my generic example.

1) Wait, so they are "capital E Evil" and "less evil" at the same time? They are still happy to kill as a first resort to their partner being "disadvantaged". Hmm tangent*

2) I would point out that we can't assume that the psycho never kills again. They just don't do so in this type of circumstance. One of my main points to Jason was that characters can have morally significant behaviour that is outside of the multiple character conflicts. It seems you understand this can't be assumed, because you added the assumption as a qualifier.

3) Whether either side needs to move their alignment in the long term is currently being debated. I don't think it is unreasonable for quertus to not presume that premise. I am not presuming that premise either, they already could have been at a stable long term compromise.



* An interesting side thought with only tangential relevance. It might be an interesting but I did not think it worth a subthread.

When using descriptive alignment, we could be doing one of 2 things. In both cases we are assigning the alignment based upon the characterization of the character rather than vice versa. However we could be examining the past or the present. If we only consider past intent/action/consequence we get a picture of who they were. To consider the present we can consider how they would act now in various possible circumstances. These methods would say different things about this psycho. The past metric might see no murders. The present metric would still observe the psycho is willing to murder whenever their partner fails to say "no". The line gets blurry when we use a moral theory that considers intent to also be morally significant, but it seems like you were using an action or consequence based moral theory.

No. The future and the now are not the "same time". I'll leave it at that. These strawman arguments only take away from the conversation.

[OldTrees1]

No. The future and the now are not the "same time". I'll leave it at that. These strawman arguments only take away from the conversation.

I do not see how that response follows from my post. Quertus' psycho would still be willing to kill as a first resort to their partner being disadvantaged. In the past. In the present. In the future. If the partner ever fails to say "no", then the psycho will murder. However if you are closing this subthread on claims of strawmen, then I will conclude that you have not convinced me of your claim about my more general case of evil character that cares about a good character. That should neatly wrap up that subthread at its start.

I'd argue the evil character in that scenario is already well on their way to neutrality.

The evil character is still evil, even in the long term. I'll leave it at that.

[Mastikator]

I do not see how that response follows from my post. Quertus' psycho would still be willing to kill as a first resort to their partner being disadvantaged. In the past. In the present. In the future. If the partner ever fails to say "no", then the psycho will murder. However if you are closing this subthread on claims of strawmen, then I will conclude that you have not convinced me of your claim about my more general case of evil character that cares about a good character. That should neatly wrap up that subthread at its start.



The evil character is still evil, even in the long term. I'll leave it at that.

Here's a personal challenge, see if you can find out how that response follows by re-reading and interpreting my previous posts. If you can do it you will probably be able to understand what I'm saying. Before that there isn't any point in having this conversation.

[OldTrees1]

Here's a personal challenge, see if you can find out how that response follows by re-reading and interpreting my previous posts. If you can do it you will probably be able to understand what I'm saying. Before that there isn't any point in having this conversation.

The forum rules prohibit posters from claiming others misread or similar responses to point out a misunderstanding. As such my hands are severely tied if there was a miscommunication involved here.

However the forum does allow me to say I did reread your post, and the prior posts you were responding to. I reread them many times prior to posting the first time. And I did so again before posting this.

Quertus' psycho is a possible concrete example of my more general example. Both of those examples have characters that did not change their behaviour in the long term. So it seems strange for you to assign them different degrees of evil when they have not changed between your judgements. Yes the present and the future are not the same, but the characterization is the same at both points so the moral character of the character would be the same at both points.

Quertus' psycho would still be willing to kill as a first resort to their partner being disadvantaged. In the past. In the present. In the future. If the partner ever fails to say "no", then the psycho will murder. Given that invariant, it seemed odd that you assigned it 2 different judgements. You then replying that "present =/= future" did not follow from a question about a multiple contradictory judgements being assigned to a temporal invariant. That said, it was a question. I wanted to hear more of your reasoning after I clarified the the behavior was the same in the past/present/future. (Sidenote: If you read the footnote/aside then you will see one of my hypotheses for a difference. But that was meant to be totally optional reading.)

[Quertus]

Cool strawman. Happily killing as a first resort to "disadvantage" is psychotically evil. That's capital E Evil.

The context you chose ignored here was that in the short term good and evil can co-exist. But not in the long term without one of them moving their alignment.

What you describe is a short term situation. What I was taking about was a long term situation. These are not the same.

A long term version of your strawman would be if the waterboy girlfriend asks "want me to kill them for you" and you say "no" and then you never kill anyone ever again. That's less evil. See how it makes sense if you just don't strawman someone?

Two years into the campaign, she's still asking, "want me to kill them for you", and you're still answering "no".

No change of moral stance on the part of either party, long-term coexistence.

Also, being an adventurer, she doubtless had kills aplenty in those two years. But, fine, between adventures with you, she could also have had an adventure with a party that said "yes" at least once. So even "and never kills again" needn't be true.

That should meet all of your criteria, and I'm not seeing your conclusion as valid.

[Mastikator]

Two years into the campaign, she's still asking, "want me to kill them for you", and you're still answering "no".

No change of moral stance on the part of either party, long-term coexistence.

Also, being an adventurer, she doubtless had kills aplenty in those two years. But, fine, between adventures with you, she could also have had an adventure with a party that said "yes" at least once. So even "and never kills again" needn't be true.

That should meet all of your criteria, and I'm not seeing your conclusion as valid.

Then I'm not seeing the other as good in that scenario. I mean you can stipulate that he's good "just because", and that he likes her "just because" but at that point you're really just hollowing out the meaning of calling someone good. He has to consistently do good, consistently make a big effort to avoid doing evil (nobody is perfect, but trying is important).

Are we talking about actual characters, either real people or PCs that could play out in an actual game? The scenario you set up strains credulity

[Democratus]

He has to consistently do good, consistently make a big effort to avoid doing evil (nobody is perfect, but trying is important).

That's not the only definition of good. And it is clearly not the one being used by many posters here.

We circle back to the fact that there is no agreed upon definition of "good" and "evil" in this thread. Thus many posts talk right past each other.

Frankly, I think the question has been definitively answered. A parent/child relationship is an excellent example of people who will get along for very long periods of time despite drastic differences in disposition or world view.

There exist relationships so strong that they are beyond the good/evil divide.

[SwordCoastTaxi]

That is a very poorly understood version of evil. You present any and all evil to be extremely backstab corruption feral animal instinct type characters. That is only an extreme form of CE.

The mafia hitman care about the family and honors the deals of the ruling member.

The corrupt politician does whatever he can be any means necessary for his town and himself. He isn't 100% sum-o-wich evil.

Both of these are evil but can easily work with a party of PCs. The good PCs just don't like them. But they get along.

No. Because they only work with good to serve their own devices.

Evil only cares about itself. By definition. Try and tell me about any evil character that didn't have selfish motives.

Give me one.

I like Darth Vader, but his selfish motive was Luke. It allowed him to betray the Emperor.

Hannibal Lecter was sound. Clarice and his love for her was selfish.

Certainly the Joker was exempt. But, his love of Batman and what he represented was selfish.

Verbal Kint and his respect for Dean Keaton. It shaped how he dealt with Agent Kuyan. Kaiser respected Keaton's love of Edie. He used it to manipulate him.

There's no such thing as an evil character that has nobel motivations.

[SwordCoastTaxi]

Talk about evil as a stand alone aspect. How do good characters deal with it?

How can I, trying to help people, deal with someone only interested in themselves? How does evil say " yeah, let's help these people", while focusing on themselves

How does evil work?

[OldTrees1]

No. Because they only work with good to serve their own devices.

Evil only cares about itself. By definition. Try and tell me about any evil character that didn't have selfish motives.

Give me one.

I like Darth Vader, but his selfish motive was Luke. It allowed him to betray the Emperor.

Hannibal Lecter was sound. Clarice and his love for her was selfish.

Certainly the Joker was exempt. But, his love of Batman and what he represented was selfish.

Verbal Kint and his respect for Dean Keaton. It shaped how he dealt with Agent Kuyan. Kaiser respected Keaton's love of Edie. He used it to manipulate him.

There's no such thing as an evil character that has nobel motivations.

Talk about evil as a stand alone aspect. How do good characters deal with it?

How can I, trying to help people, deal with someone only interested in themselves? How does evil say " yeah, let's help these people", while focusing on themselves

How does evil work?

It sounds like you are claiming "If a character cares about even a single other individual, then they can't be Evil".

So if a character has a loved one (child, sibling, parent, partner) that they care about, they can't be Evil?

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...ilHasLovedOnes And sometimes that is genuine love.

Mr Freeze is primarily motivated by his love for Nora Fries. Your claim would hold that because he cares about someone beyond himself, therefore he can't be Evil regardless of the murders. I do not agree with that line of logic.

This is not to say Evil does not care about itself. Even Good cares about itself. However, like Good, Evil can care about things other than itself.

How does evil work? They have motivations. Some of those motivations can be caring for another person. Some of those motivations are self interested. How can you deal with someone with motivations? Find ways to align the task with their motivations.


To beat a dead horse here are some more examples of Evil caring about another person:
Azula from Avatar the Last Airbender loves her father.
Xanatos from Gargoyles loves Foxx, "at least as much as anyone as smart as either of them can love another person", and both of them love their baby Alexander.
Cheshire from Young Justice cares about her sister Artemis .
Gul Dukat from Deep Space 9 cares about his daughter Tora Ziyal.

[Lord Raziere]

No. Because they only work with good to serve their own devices.

Evil only cares about itself. By definition. Try and tell me about any evil character that didn't have selfish motives.

Give me one.

I like Darth Vader, but his selfish motive was Luke. It allowed him to betray the Emperor.

Hannibal Lecter was sound. Clarice and his love for her was selfish.

Certainly the Joker was exempt. But, his love of Batman and what he represented was selfish.

Verbal Kint and his respect for Dean Keaton. It shaped how he dealt with Agent Kuyan. Kaiser respected Keaton's love of Edie. He used it to manipulate him.

There's no such thing as an evil character that has nobel motivations.

Ahem.....if I may start listing characters that are both evil but either have noble intentions, loved ones or are well intentioned extremists:
Ozymandias, Lelouch vi Britannia, Artorius Collbrande, Lord Yggdrasil, Nagato, Obito, Madara, Itachi Uchiha, Claudia from Dragon Prince, Kiritsugu Emiya, Artemis Fowl at first, Asgore, Blunt from Freefall, Prosecutor Godot, Damon Gant, Miles Edgeworth at first, Stain, Mewtwo and N from Pokemon, all the villains of TTGL, V from V for Vendetta, Dr. Halsey from Halo, Ganondorf (his original motive was to free the Gerudo from the desert), Van Grants, The Lord Ruler, and of course one of the originals: Magneto.

why list only one when I can provide as much evidence as I possibly can?

[SwordCoastTaxi]

It sounds like you are claiming "If a character cares about even a single other individual, then they can't be Evil".

So if a character has a loved one (child, sibling, parent, partner) that they care about, they can't be Evil?

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...ilHasLovedOnes And sometimes that is genuine love.

Mr Freeze is primarily motivated by his love for Nora Fries. Your claim would hold that because he cares about someone beyond himself, therefore he can't be Evil regardless of the murders. I do not agree with that line of logic.

This is not to say Evil does not care about itself. Even Good cares about itself. However, like Good, Evil can care about things other than itself.

How does evil work? They have motivations. Some of those motivations can be caring for another person. Some of those motivations are self interested. How can you deal with someone with motivations? Find ways to align the task with their motivations.


To beat a dead horse here are some more examples of Evil caring about another person:
Azula from Avatar the Last Airbender loves her father.
Xanatos from Gargoyles loves Foxx, "at least as much as anyone as smart as either of them can love another person", and both of them love their baby Alexander.
Cheshire from Young Justice cares about her sister Artemis .
Gul Dukat from Deep Space 9 cares about his daughter Tora Ziyal.

Nice examples I'm sure that only make my point: evil characters are self-serving regardless of who they love. They use love as justification for the evil they do. Please stop trying to equate evil to good. They cannot be expressed in a moral way as "the same".

Evil breaks moral laws to accomplish itself. Good fulfills moral laws.

Ahem.....if I may start listing characters that are both evil but either have noble intentions, loved ones or are well intentioned extremists:
Ozymandias, Lelouch vi Britannia, Artorius Collbrande, Lord Yggdrasil, Nagato, Obito, Madara, Itachi Uchiha, Claudia from Dragon Prince, Kiritsugu Emiya, Artemis Fowl at first, Asgore, Blunt from Freefall, Prosecutor Godot, Damon Gant, Miles Edgeworth at first, Stain, Mewtwo and N from Pokemon, all the villains of TTGL, V from V for Vendetta, Dr. Halsey from Halo, Ganondorf (his original motive was to free the Gerudo from the desert), Van Grants, The Lord Ruler, and of course one of the originals: Magneto.

why list only one when I can provide as much evidence as I possibly can?

Nice list but evil still remains evil.

[Lord Raziere]

Nice examples I'm sure that only make my point: evil characters are self-serving regardless of who they love. They use love as justification for the evil they do. Please stop trying to equate evil to good. They cannot be expressed in a moral way as "the same".

Evil breaks moral laws to accomplish itself. Good fulfills moral laws.


Nice list but evil still remains evil.

Yes evil is evil. this is not something we disagree on.

what we disagree on is love and selflessness being inherently good. to use some of the better examples of my list:

Blunt is a robot who believes that robots are dangerous to humanity- and is fully willing to die along with the rest of the robots to protect humanity. he is an extremist who has no illusions that his extremism will lead to his own doom and accepts its as the price to pay for whats really important to him. he is a martyr to his cause, completely selfless, denying even his own survival instinct the most basic of needs so that he can do this- he is as selfless as one can possibly be. and its completely wrong because robots in Freefall while obedient to humanity are sapient like anyone else. he is not a hypocrite secretly wanting others to die while he remains alive, he is not wishing to secretly control all other robots to take over, he is completely genuine in his solution of destroying robots to save humanity.

Claudia uses dark evil magic to sacrifice a living creature to bring back her brother, then uses it again to bring back her father who is acting as an evil vizier taking over their country from its rightful one the whole time, simply because she loves them, as well tricking her brother with an illusion. her love and loyalty to her family is actually a bad thing as its blinds her to the actual good she has been set against, putting her father's wellbeing before her own and everyone elses.

Itachi Uchiha did nothing but do things for the sake of the greater good: he killed almost his entire family to prevent a civil war and became known as a mass murderer and criminal because of it, so he infiltrated a criminal organization afterwards to hopefully figure out their plan so that he could tell everyone what they're up to, but then mentally tortured the brother he loved to make him want to kill him so that he could die for what he done by the hands of his own brother. again he is a martyr who believes he should die for what he has done- and does because he has an illness, but after his death his actions only cause things to go off the rails from what he intended.

evil is evil but evil =/= selfish or incapable of love. there are many ways love, martyrdom and seemingly selfless causes can be completely wrong and twisted as selfishness.

[OldTrees1]

Nice examples I'm sure that only make my point: evil characters are self-serving regardless of who they love. They use love as justification for the evil they do. Please stop trying to equate evil to good. They cannot be expressed in a moral way as "the same".

Evil breaks moral laws to accomplish itself. Good fulfills moral laws.


Nice list but evil still remains evil.

Evil still remains evil and evil is not good. I just wanted to make sure you were aware that evil characters are people and they can love. They can care about more than "just themselves".

Evil is willing to break moral laws to accomplish its ends. But they can have selfless ends. You called this "they use love as a justification for the evil they do" but the actual examples underlines my point that they can care about people beyond themselves.

Mr Freeze has done more evil in his pursuit of the selfless end of saving Nora Fries than he did for the selfish ends of self preservation.

Evil characters are not aliens. They can love. They can have selfless ends. But they are willing to use immoral means to accomplish those ends.

[Jason]

Evil still remains evil and evil is not good. I just wanted to make sure you were aware that evil characters are people and they can love. They can care about more than "just themselves".

Evil is willing to break moral laws to accomplish its ends. But they can have selfless ends. You called this "they use love as a justification for the evil they do" but the actual examples underlines my point that they can care about people beyond themselves.

Mr Freeze has done more evil in his pursuit of the selfless end of saving Nora Fries than he did for the selfish ends of self preservation.

Evil characters are not aliens. They can love. They can have selfless ends. But they are willing to use immoral means to accomplish those ends.

Mr. Freeze is evil because he values the life of Nora Fries above that of anyone else. It's an unhealthy obsession, and ultimately a selfish one. He values her life because she belonged to him, as his wife.

[icefractal]

I just don't think the evil = selfish thing holds up as a rule. Yes, the majority of evil characters are selfish, but there are a number of archetypes which are evil without that. For example:
* Honest believer in an evil ideology - Bob believes that Nurgle is the true path, and goes around spreading disease to lead people to salvation.
* Champions one group over others to an evil extent - Richard is the mayor of a small town, and really cares about it. Cares about it so much that he'll poison the wells of other towns that threaten to compete economically, he'll assassinate people and kick off civil unrest that kills thousands more so that a king friendly to his town takes the throne, and if necessarily he'll sacrifice innocent people to demons for the necessary power to protect it. You could call this "selfish" because he personally cares about the town, but by that metric most heroes are selfish too.
* Self-destructive - Lord Edge hasn't felt anything but emptiness since what happened to his family. He lashes out at the world not because that helps him (it really doesn't, he's been on the run for years as a result), not even because he enjoys it (only emptiness, as mentioned), but because nobody else deserves happiness either.

[Jason]

I just don't think the evil = selfish thing holds up as a rule. Yes, the majority of evil characters are selfish, but there are a number of archetypes which are evil without that. For example:
* Honest believer in an evil ideology - Bob believes that Nurgle is the true path, and goes around spreading disease to lead people to salvation.

Bob is selfish because he believes he knows better than other people do the correct path to follow and is making their choice for them, whether they want it or not.

* Champions one group over others to an evil extent - Richard is the mayor of a small town, and really cares about it. Cares about it so much that he'll poison the wells of other towns that threaten to compete economically, he'll assassinate people and kick off civil unrest that kills thousands more so that a king friendly to his town takes the throne, and if necessarily he'll sacrifice innocent people to demons for the necessary power to protect it. You could call this "selfish" because he personally cares about the town, but by that metric most heroes are selfish too.

I do call that selfish. Actively destroying other towns is a bit more selfish than a friendly competition between villages.

* Self-destructive - Lord Edge hasn't felt anything but emptiness since what happened to his family. He lashes out at the world not because that helps him (it really doesn't, he's been on the run for years as a result), not even because he enjoys it (only emptiness, as mentioned), but because nobody else deserves happiness either.

This type of evil is selfish because they are desiring others to suffer as they are suffering.

Selfishness is in fact a pretty good metric for evil.

[Batcathat]

Bob is selfish because he believes he knows better than other people do the correct path to follow and is making their choice for them, whether they want it or not.

Doesn't "believes he knows better than other people do the correct path to follow and is making their choice for them, whether they want it or not" describe a lot of paladins and other do-gooders as well, though? Not all of them, certaintly, but some of them.

[Jason]

Doesn't "believes he knows better than other people do the correct path to follow and is making their choice for them, whether they want it or not" describe a lot of paladins and other do-gooders as well, though? Not all of them, certaintly, but some of them.

Sometimes, sure.

[SwordCoastTaxi]

Yes evil is evil. this is not something we disagree on.

what we disagree on is love and selflessness being inherently good. to use some of the better examples of my list:

Blunt is a robot who believes that robots are dangerous to humanity- and is fully willing to die along with the rest of the robots to protect humanity. he is an extremist who has no illusions that his extremism will lead to his own doom and accepts its as the price to pay for whats really important to him. he is a martyr to his cause, completely selfless, denying even his own survival instinct the most basic of needs so that he can do this- he is as selfless as one can possibly be. and its completely wrong because robots in Freefall while obedient to humanity are sapient like anyone else. he is not a hypocrite secretly wanting others to die while he remains alive, he is not wishing to secretly control all other robots to take over, he is completely genuine in his solution of destroying robots to save humanity.

Claudia uses dark evil magic to sacrifice a living creature to bring back her brother, then uses it again to bring back her father who is acting as an evil vizier taking over their country from its rightful one the whole time, simply because she loves them, as well tricking her brother with an illusion. her love and loyalty to her family is actually a bad thing as its blinds her to the actual good she has been set against, putting her father's wellbeing before her own and everyone elses.

Itachi Uchiha did nothing but do things for the sake of the greater good: he killed almost his entire family to prevent a civil war and became known as a mass murderer and criminal because of it, so he infiltrated a criminal organization afterwards to hopefully figure out their plan so that he could tell everyone what they're up to, but then mentally tortured the brother he loved to make him want to kill him so that he could die for what he done by the hands of his own brother. again he is a martyr who believes he should die for what he has done- and does because he has an illness, but after his death his actions only cause things to go off the rails from what he intended.

evil is evil but evil =/= selfish or incapable of love. there are many ways love, martyrdom and seemingly selfless causes can be completely wrong and twisted as selfishness.

You don't have to explain love as a selfish pleasure.

Hannibal Lecter is evil, but he expressed a deep love for Clarice that broke his evil nature.

Darth Vader is evil, but he expressed a deep love for Luke that broke his evil nature.

I'm not saying evil characters can't possibly amend themselves, but I am saying without that amending character that makes them change their ways, they are evil.

They need a reason to change. If you don't provide it, the adventure has no reason to change gears.

[Bartmanhomer]

What about when Kylo kissed Rey? They expressed their love for each other in the Star Wars movies.

[Lord Raziere]

Bob is selfish because he believes he knows better than other people do the correct path to follow and is making their choice for them, whether they want it or not.
I do call that selfish. Actively destroying other towns is a bit more selfish than a friendly competition between villages.
This type of evil is selfish because they are desiring others to suffer as they are suffering.

Selfishness is in fact a pretty good metric for evil.

I dunno thats really stretching the definition there:

self·ish
/ˈselfiSH/
adjective
(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

note the lacking of consideration for others. these characters are all about considering others and how other peoples profit or pleasure, they are just wrong about how to do that properly or want those people to not profit or be pleased. they are considering other people in a negative way. thats not technically selfish. "everyone needs more pain their life to be happy" is not a selfish motivation, because your thinking about other people at all and how they can be benefited, but is still evil because it implies inflicting pain. negative consideration =/= seflishness.

[OldTrees1]

Mr. Freeze is evil because he values the life of Nora Fries above that of anyone else. It's an unhealthy obsession, and ultimately a selfish one. He values her life because she belonged to him, as his wife.

You might want to learn more about Mr. Freeze. He values her life because he cares for her. It is not this twisted possessive love you are claiming it is. Yes, he is evil because he values her life above that of anyone else, and is willing to kill others to help her. However it is not selfish. Mr. Freeze has willingly lost almost everything merely to fail to save a woman that he cares about. However I will agree that it is unhealthy, Mr Freeze cannot save Nora Fries, and so the struggle to achieve this impossible selfless end is an unhealthy goal.

However if you don't like the Mr. Freeze example, take your pick of the countless selfless loves that various evil characters have had. I linked to tv tropes for a reason. It is common enough to be a trope, or even a cliché.

Using evil means to accomplish a selfless end is evil. It is okay to accept that evil people are people and thus can also care for others. Likewise, having 1 genuine loving relationship does not offset evil deeds the character does elsewhere. It is okay to accept that evil people are people and thus can also care for others.

[Quertus]

Bob is selfish because he believes he knows better than other people do the correct path to follow and is making their choice for them, whether they want it or not.
I do call that selfish. Actively destroying other towns is a bit more selfish than a friendly competition between villages.
This type of evil is selfish because they are desiring others to suffer as they are suffering.

Selfishness is in fact a pretty good metric for evil.

By this logic, I fear that everyone is selfish. And therefore, everyone is evil.

I think most would contend that it's what one is willing to *do* about one's more selfish desires that demarks one's position on the spectrum of evil.

[Tanarii]

These discussions always remind me that people bring so much personal morality into discussions about Alignments. But one of the biggest is how they view the 'line' of where to put good and evil on a sliding scale.

Some folks seem to feel if you're not, say, 90% Good (capital G) most of the time you're not good. Sometimes that's paired with 90% Evil (cap E) is evil. Alternately, it's can be paired with one truly Evil (cap E) damns you forever, or Fall From Grace thinking. Regardless, all that middle ground stuff apparently doesn't count. These folks may even feel that a sliding scale doesn't exist for morality.

Others seem be be more in like a sliding scale of behavior where 0-33% is evil, 34-67% is neutral, and 68+ is good. All the middle space counts.

Then on top of that, there is good or evil being about specific actions having good or evil "weight", or overall behavior with no individual actions having alignment "weight". If you're playing D&D 3e for example it's the former. In D&D 5e it's the latter.

[OldTrees1]

These discussions always remind me that people bring so much personal morality into discussions about Alignments. But one of the biggest is how they view the 'line' of where to put good and evil on a sliding scale.

Some folks seem to feel if you're not, say, 90% Good (capital G) most of the time you're not good. Sometimes that's paired with 90% Evil (cap E) is evil. Alternately, it's can be paired with one truly Evil (cap E) damns you forever, or Fall From Grace thinking. Regardless, all that middle ground stuff apparently doesn't count. These folks may even feel that a sliding scale doesn't exist for morality.

Others seem be be more in like a sliding scale of behavior where 0-33% is evil, 34-67% is neutral, and 68+ is good. All the middle space counts.

Then on top of that, there is good or evil being about specific actions having good or evil "weight", or overall behavior with no individual actions having alignment "weight". If you're playing D&D 3e for example it's the former. In D&D 5e it's the latter.

A good elaboration. The more polarized you make the minimum conditions, the less likely the two characters are to get along, and the shorter the duration they will tolerate each other. Make it polarized enough and the characters might only get along for a short coffee break every week rather than joint quests with a day of downtime in between.

[Tanarii]

A good elaboration. The more polarized you make the minimum conditions, the less likely the two characters are to get along, and the shorter the duration they will tolerate each other. Make it polarized enough and the characters might only get along for a short coffee break every week rather than joint quests with a day of downtime in between.

Yup. Another way of putting it:

A saint might try to redeem a baby murderer, but probably won't get along with them.

But someone that occasionally gives money to help the poor might get along fine with someone that regularly five finger discounts at the local store.

Some people won't see the latter as good and evil, because it's not Good and Evil like the former. So to speak.

[SwordCoastTaxi]

Evil still remains evil and evil is not good. I just wanted to make sure you were aware that evil characters are people and they can love. They can care about more than "just themselves".

Evil is willing to break moral laws to accomplish its ends. But they can have selfless ends. You called this "they use love as a justification for the evil they do" but the actual examples underlines my point that they can care about people beyond themselves.

Mr Freeze has done more evil in his pursuit of the selfless end of saving Nora Fries than he did for the selfish ends of self preservation.

Evil characters are not aliens. They can love. They can have selfless ends. But they are willing to use immoral means to accomplish those ends.

And if an evil character doesn't LOVE the party, it will cause problems because evil serves itself primarily.