What is EVIL?

[blackjack50]

I know this is done to death. But evil does not make one “evil” in the sense that you want the end of the world. It means you are self serving. Does anyone see the self serving aspect as the most important part of being evil?

[darknite]

If you have to ask...

I would not say it's self serving. I'd say the lack of empathy for the plight/wellbeing of others and willingness to harm others to further your own desires is a good start.

[Man_Over_Game]

If you have to ask...

Made me smile.

• Good: Average people are worth sacrifice. Helping a person makes your world better. You ignore them only because you can't afford to help them.
• Neutral: People are people, just like you. Ignoring them, and them ignoring you, is the most efficient way to make your world better,
• Evil: People are a resource or an obstacle. Removing or using them is the best way to make your world better. You ignore them because removing/using them would be too expensive to be worthwhile.

I've heard the topic come up a lot, but that seems to be the simplest, down to earth definitions I've seen yet.


If you have a Good Cultist, a Neutral Cultist, and a Bad Cultist, and all of them need to make sacrifices:

• The Good Cultist tries to find another solution, if possible, or is bitter about the experience.
• The Neutral Cultist pushes back the remorse by believing in the necessity.
• The Bad Cultist thinks of the success of the result, and not of the sacrifice made.

[Sigreid]

Evil is the complete disregard for the consequences your actions have for others because all that really matters is what you want. An evil person may lack the self awareness that it's all about themselves.

[DrLoveMonkey]

You light look at the dark and light triads of personality for a start. I think I’m DnD terms that makes sense to assign them personality traits, since god alignment doesn’t strictly define what actions you can and can’t take, but more your methods and desires.

[Demonslayer666]

I know this is done to death. But evil does not make one “evil” in the sense that you want the end of the world. It means you are self serving. Does anyone see the self serving aspect as the most important part of being evil?

No, self serving is not the most important part.

You can be self serving and not be evil, and you can be selfless and be evil.

It depends on what you are willing to do to others (particularly innocents) to achieve your goals that makes one evil.

[johnbragg]

If we're talking about Eevil in elfgames, then I'm going to lay down some postulates.

The world is magic, is responsive to mind.
We are all connected in some sort of medium--Force or Weave or Ether or whatever.
Power, information can be transmitted through that medium.
Everyone, to some degree or another, is connected to the medium.

Eevil isn't just being sociopathically self-centered. Selling your party to the dragon for a million gold pieces? Sure, that's evil, but not Eevil. Pulling the wings off of flies out of curiousity? Evil, but not Eevil. Pulling the wings off of flies to make them suffer? Eevil.

Eevil is what happens when you get a taste of inflicting cruelty, and the sensation is pleasant and you want more of it. Being cruel is it's own reward. It feels GOOOOD. You taste their pain, their agony, their terror.

It's addictive. And like most addicting substances, very often heavy users end up doing things that non-users see as completely irrational.

That, my friends, is why the BBEG monologues. Watching the heroes' or the captives' terror and pain as you monologue is the whole POINT of the Eevil plan. If you can get that next hit of Eevil, at the price of unleashing the universe-destroying terror that is locked behind the seal you're opening with the blood of a bunch of innocents, that's what you gotta do.

[Naanomi]

It gets complex with the cosmological evil thrown in, and of course it is a ton of grey area (from a mortal perspective anyways) but broadly I usually go with...

~Willingness and tendency to intentionally and willfully help others (defined as reducing suffering or increasing happiness; either individually or in a broader scale) even at your own expense is Good
~Unwillingness to invest meaningful personal resources in either aiding or harming others in a consistent intentional manner is Neutral
~Willingness and tendency to intentionally and willfully harm others (defined as increasing suffering or reducing happiness; either individually or in a broader scale) for personal gain is Evil

[Particle_Man]

I would flip the definition of Evil from "self-serving" to "lack of other-serving".

A Good person will serve or help others (including strangers) in need, without thinking "how can this instrumentally help me"? They will usually only hurt others if that in turn helps protect innocents or brings evildoers to justice. Even there they would avoid certain actions, even to evil-doers, as beyong the pale.

A Neutral person will serve or help those in their "in-group" (usually family and friends, sometimes "my D&D party") in the way listed above, but will likely not go out of their way to help those outside that group and if it becomes necessary to hurt then in order to serve their or their "in group"'s interests they will. So soldiers of country A will attack and kill soldiers of country B, because, hey, they are country B, not "one of us" like other country A citizens. Such soldiers would not attack other soldiers of country A, other things being equal. That said, there might be certain actions that they would avoid doing, even to an outsider/stranger, as "beyond the pale".

An Evil person has an "in-group" of one. They would not help others unless they can see how it instrumentally helps themselves more than doing some other action. They are limited in their actions by what they can get away with, by force or fraud. And thus no action is "beyond the pale" as such.

[Naanomi]

The problem (well... one problem) with defining in-group support as ‘neutral’ is that supporting ‘your own’ at the expense of others is one of the defining themes of both Acheron and Gehenna (lower, decidedly Evil Planes)... and that group support is at least as much an issue of Law as it is a Good/Evil position

[Corran]

Evil is the complete disregard for the consequences your actions have for others because all that really matters is what you want. An evil person may lack the self awareness that it's all about themselves.

Or inaction. Choices sums it up well imo.

[Damon_Tor]

I know this is done to death. But evil does not make one “evil” in the sense that you want the end of the world. It means you are self serving. Does anyone see the self serving aspect as the most important part of being evil?

Simply put, evil is when you take more than what you give, so yes, the most common sort of evil person is simply selfish. But that's also the least interesting. It's more interesting when the villain in question is NOT selfish, but acts in an evil way because he has a skewed perception of what he's taking, who he's taking it from, or why he's taking it.

[Millstone85]

I see it like that:

compassion--indifference--cruelty
■ Good ■ Neutral ■ Evil

[Damon_Tor]

Evil is the complete disregard for the consequences your actions have for others because all that really matters is what you want. An evil person may lack the self awareness that it's all about themselves.

I disagree: a villain who frowns and mutters about how civilian casualties are regrettable but necessary is no less evil than a villain who laughs while they burn, assuming both are willing to take the same actions to achieve the same goals.

[Trickery]

Evil is the complete disregard for the consequences your actions have for others because all that really matters is what you want. An evil person may lack the self awareness that it's all about themselves.

In D&D specifically, blind pursuit of your own interests is not enough to make you evil - that's just neutral. Evil specifically means that the person wants to cause harm to others for its own sake. You wouldn't call a grizzly bear evil despite it not giving a damn about you. But you would call the drow evil for wanting to enslave, subjugate, torture, and kill other races. And demons are evil by definition since they enjoy killing and sewing chaos.

I disagree: a villain who frowns and mutters about how civilian casualties are regrettable but necessary is...

Just neutral, actually. An evil villain wants to cause those casualties. That's part of the point.

[Damon_Tor]

Just neutral, actually. An evil villain wants to cause those casualties. That's part of the point.

So a neutral character can try to take over the world as long as he doesn't enjoy the process? Is that your position?

[Trickery]

So a neutral character can try to take over the world as long as he doesn't enjoy the process? Is that your position?

If it's done to further his own goals and he doesn't go out of his way to hurt people, then yeah. There's a big difference between that and a villain who wants to kill all elves just because he doesn't like their ears or attitudes.

To use a pop culture example, it's like the difference between the Thanos who thinks killing half the universe will actually help people in the long run and the one who wants to take revenge on Earth for foiling his plans. Some things a person does can't be considered good, like raising the dead. The reasons are the difference between evil and neutral.

[KorvinStarmast]

I know this is done to death.

Indeed it has.
Matt Coleville has a good youtube video on alignment in D&D, wherein he points out that all the labels "good" and "evil" amount to is a means by which two people on oppisite sides of an argument keep score. The point is to smear or belittle another party with a label that has a negative connotation. I'll not reproduce his argument here, that's just a summary. His youtube channel is easily found.

To answer your question in the titie: I prefer to adapt Potter Stewart's approach to another topic. Substitute in the word "EVIL" for "hard-core pornography" and you'll find a better way, as a DM in D&D, to approach this topic. For RL moral philosophy, you'll want to look elsewhere.

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

~ Concurring, Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964).

When you and a player, or when you and a DM, have a disagreement on the badness, or the evilness over something going on, or a character's actions, or a characters motivations, stop finger pointing and have a conversation.

Why do you think this was, or wasn't evil?
Talk to each other, not at each other.

[Sigreid]

I disagree: a villain who frowns and mutters about how civilian casualties are regrettable but necessary is no less evil than a villain who laughs while they burn, assuming both are willing to take the same actions to achieve the same goals.

I would file that under the part of the evil person may lack the self awareness that what they want is all that really matters.

[Xihirli]

To use a pop culture example, it's like the difference between the Thanos who thinks killing half the universe will actually help people in the long run and the one who wants to take revenge on Earth for foiling his plans. Some things a person does can't be considered good, like raising the dead. The reasons are the difference between evil and neutral.

That example demonstrates the opposite of your point.
Thanos is very clearly evil. The fact that he’s also sad doesn’t change that.

Ras al Ghul, Claude Frollo, and Thanos are all evil. Their goals - the subjugation and termination of thinking, feeling creatures - are evil. In addition, they have poor judgement and think that their actions are necessary.

[GlenSmash!]

That example demonstrates the opposite of your point.
Thanos is very clearly evil. The fact that he’s also sad doesn’t change that.

Ras al Ghul, Claude Frollo, and Thanos are all evil. Their goals - the subjugation and termination of thinking, feeling creatures - are evil. In addition, they have poor judgement and think that their actions are necessary.

Agreed. What we have here is not a reason why a character is not evil, but a compelling reason why they choose to do evil.

[Nagog]

Let me put it into Comics terms for you (Because I'm a massive nerd):

The Joker is Evil, because he seeks destruction and chaos at the expense of others, even when it would otherwise hurt himself

Lex Luthor (for the most part) is Neutral, because he has a goal that is neither good nor evil (to have humanity stop using Superman as a crutch). The methods he uses are often evil and occasionally good, but his alignment is Neutral, as he, like many of the heroes of this universe, seeks for order and the betterment of humanity.

Superman is Good for obvious reasons.

[Moltenbrisingr]

Evil = Achieving your end justifies any means

[Whyrocknodie]

The opposition are Evil. We are Good. Quite straightforward.

[Man_Over_Game]

Agreed. What we have here is not a reason why a character is not evil, but a compelling reason why they choose to do evil.

I think that'd make sense in a "Good vs. Evil" context, but I think it makes less sense when you add Neutral as an option.

For example, three people, one of each alignment, is told they must do something bad for the betterment of all, like destroying a city to save a planet. How does each one respond?

[GlenSmash!]

I think that'd make sense in a "Good vs. Evil" context, but I think it makes less sense when you add Neutral as an option.

For example, three people, one of each alignment, is told they must do something bad for the betterment of all, like destroying a city to save a planet. How does each one respond?

I can't predict how each would respond. I can see too many responses of such variety that have nothing to do with an ethical scale even.

For example the Captain Kirk type regardless of Alignment would refuse to answer the question on the grounds that he doesn't believe in no win scenarios.

Kirk doesn't waste time thinking about about the trolley car.

[sithlordnergal]

So this is a rather curious question for me, because there is no black and white answer. Good and Evil are determined purely by society and beliefs, there are no absolute Good or Evil things. So that Orc who's raiding a village? They could absolutely be Lawful Good, and remain Lawful Good, provided their society is such that raiding is not considered an evil act, similar to Viking Raids.

EDIT: And yes, that absolutely means you can run into someone who would be "Chaotic Evil" in a Celestial, Good only realm, and find a Lawful Good Paladin in the Nine Hells.

[Fable Wright]

I feel Eberron had a good take on it.

Good and Evil, for mortals, is a sliding scale of empathy vs sociopathy.

Lex Luthor is Evil. He doesn't care about who gets in his way, it's for the best of mankind.

Thanos is Evil. Even if he has a loved one, he views the human cost of his actions as a statistic.

Superman is Good. He cares about humanity and the impacts of his actions.

Some jobs require a level of sociopathy. The repo man can't sympathize too hard or he doesn't do his job, and his job is, on the whole, beneficial to society.

Supernatural Evil is enforced sociopathy from day 1 of existence, which grows pretty monstrous over a few millennia of existence.

[Man_Over_Game]

I can't predict how each would respond. I can see too many responses of such variety that have nothing to do with an ethical scale even.

For example the Captain Kirk type regardless of Alignment would refuse to answer the question on the grounds that he doesn't believe in no win scenarios.

Kirk doesn't waste time thinking about about the trolley car.

This makes me think that Evil entities are willing to do the hard thing, when Good entities are both stubborn and in denial.

Like Adults vs. Children, if both were equally competent.

[Nagog]

This makes me think that Evil entities are willing to do the hard thing, when Good entities are both stubborn and in denial.

Like Adults vs. Children, if both were equally competent.

This mentality is what leads me to look more at goals and desires when determining alignment. If the goal is something that is evil, such as destruction, genocide, subjugation, etc. then they are evil. If their goal is something good, like the betterment of their race/planet/universe, it is good. That has it's own flaws, but that's the mentality I use.

I feel Eberron had a good take on it.

Good and Evil, for mortals, is a sliding scale of empathy vs sociopathy.

Lex Luthor is Evil. He doesn't care about who gets in his way, it's for the best of mankind.

Thanos is Evil. Even if he has a loved one, he views the human cost of his actions as a statistic.

Superman is Good. He cares about humanity and the impacts of his actions.

Some jobs require a level of sociopathy. The repo man can't sympathize too hard or he doesn't do his job, and his job is, on the whole, beneficial to society.

Supernatural Evil is enforced sociopathy from day 1 of existence, which grows pretty monstrous over a few millennia of existence.

This is a good example of the flaws of my earlier stated determining factors. Under those factors, Lex Luthor is Good. The MCU Thanos would also be considered Good, as while his methods were undoutably evil, they were, in his mind, necessary to bring about a good and altruistic outcome. In the comics, Thanos wants to eradicate life to impress Lady Death (Who is Hela from Ragnarok for you movie only fans). That rendition of Thanos would be considered evil by these scales because he seeks destruction and death for a selfish, personal reason.