Evil in DnD

I'm guessing you'll get a lot of answers like this OP, or answers that are reworded versions of these 'cause they get to the heart of it.

The way I'd put it is something like... acting upon the desire to do wrong, since the desire alone doesn't make one evil. Lots of people have fleeting thoughts along the lines of "If I didn't have any morals, I could totally get away with stealing this thing".

Though that definition assumes that everyone knows and agrees on what "wrong" is. The nature of evil is more complicated of a discussion than an alignment chart allows, in my opinion, but alignment is a useful shorthand.

Eh, the normal thievery of rogues is fairly petty compared to murder. It's definitely not good, very possibly evil, but if it is evil, it's fairly weak evil.

Thanks guys, I think I got the idea overall. As it seems, definition of evil in DnD is more narrow than I thought, as doing some bad things for reasons doesn't make you evil automatically. But I guess it's also much wider than I thought, since it's also could include business owners, government officials or even common people and not just orcs and dark lords.

I guess my next logical question is what does it take to be dnd Good? If anything that's even harder to nail down when evil.

Actually, most pcs would be neutral, as is most sapient beings in the world, since most pcs are not incredibly selfless, but are not amoral, generally following the law of civilized lands.
>The nature of evil is more complicated of a discussion than an alignment chart allows, in my opinion, but alignment is a useful shorthand.
I'd agree if in D&D, evil wasn't a thing of morals, but a tangible cosmic constant.
Evil is defined in D&D because, in D&D, Evil IS defined.

this. its like another alignment thread in the case of a hedonist, it depends how far they go to get their kicks or how selfish they are. you could be lawful good if your shtick is whooping it up and invite everyone, whoop it up with everyone you meet. worship the party god and heed the party fowls.

Depends on what kind of "evil" you mean, Player Evil or Non-Player Evil. NPE isn't doesn't necessarily equate to real world evil, although they frequently overlap. NPE is usually an obstacle or problem that exists in the setting - ie there is a gang of ogres shaking some small hamlets down for protection - that the players have to solve or overcome. It exists to drive the story forward, to give the players something to do. PE, evil alignments, are different.

I've played one evil character in a serious campaign and I've got another lined up for a future campaign.

I played a lawful evil Oathbreaker paladin in my last campaign. She was "evil" in that she was selfish, she didn't care about other people really and was mostly in it for herself. She was good to the party (player etiquette and all) but she didn't give a shit about anyone else. This attitude stemmed from her discovery that as a half-angel, she had no soul, and so would never be able to access the afterlife her ersatz christian religion had promised her. To her mind, if other people died or suffered, it didn't matter as they'd get to go on to heaven.

In this case we see that PE is both my character's backstory and a guide to playing them. It's something that informs how I played her, what actions she took, what she said, how she treated others, etc. Yes, its pretty much a kind of selfishness.

That said, I'd never use it as an excuse for PvP or to otherwise screw over my party members. My personal motto is you can do whatever you like to the setting, but you should respect your fellow players. Be selfish when it comes to NPCs, not PCs, or your game will go down in flames quickly.

>When your lawful neutral cleric is more evil than a lawful evil ruler, but the only reason why he is not evil because he is just following orders.

A true lawful neutral protects the village one day and wipe it out the next day if order to.

>what does it take to be dnd Good? If anything that's even harder to nail down when evil.
Not really.
It requires habitual selflessness, doing kindnesses for others at your own expense or the potential for personal profit.
Example of my own:
>playing paladin
>devote a fair amount (40-70%) of my money and personal time when not adventuring to building homes, erecting farmhouses, training militias in towns we pass by, even ended up on a city council for a time
>do not force the more ne'er do well members of the party to be like me, but offer to help them along the way to be better
>do not murder the wizard and warlock when they torture a prisoner under my care, instead give them a stern warning that it was broaching boundaries and ask them to be mindful of their own souls (warlock flicks me off, oh well)
>somehow capture and redeem a group of frost giants, creating the first team of frost giant paladins patrolling the arctic regions (I really didn't expect it to come out that way)
>took 50 lashes for a child who was caught pickpocketing in exchange for making him my ward, said child rounded up the other kids and I am now financing their trade schooling after they helped bring down the gang they were pressganged into
These are exceptional, yes, but there are an example of how a single person say they are good and back it up.

They way I define it. Evil is about preferring the advancement of self over all other concerns with no restrictions. You are the most important thing in the universe, to the level that no other concerns matter.

So torture for a cookie? Sure, if you want that cookie and torture is the way to go. Nothing is too trivial on either direction.

However, that doesn't mean that you would do harm just for the sake of doing harm. Nor does it mean that you would look for ways to advance yourself only through doing harm to others.

It is possible, for example, for the 'best' ruler to be an evil ruler if he felt that being 'good' was the best way to advance his cause. But he would do the most evil shit imaginable if it later was required.

An Evil person would never truly sacrifice of himself unless he saw a long term advancement in it for him.

As others have said, making the world a shittier place for your own benefit or amusement would be D&D evil. Improving the state of things without necessarilly gaining from it would be good. Whether the normal D&D playstyle actually fits with that is where things get goofy.

As a bonus, Neutral isn't in-between Good and Evil or sometimes good, sometimes bad. Neutrality works outside the good and evil system like an animal that doesn't understand the concepts or a hardass lawman trying to stay completely objective.

>it take to be dnd Good
Good would be the focus on the other. The willingness to sacrifice self for the advancement of others.

One thing about Good vs Evil in D&D. These should be extremes. This isn't the person who occasionally drops a copper in a beggars bowl who qualifies as Good. It isn't the guy who picks pockets in the market place who qualifies as Evil. Both of those people likely have limits to which they would go.

The Good person would sacrifice his life for the world. The Evil person would sacrifice the world for himself. Most people should be 'neutral with good leanings' or 'neutral with evil leanings'.

>I'd agree if in D&D, evil wasn't a thing of morals, but a tangible cosmic constant.
That's a really good point, hadn't thought about it from that perspective.

user, that's sorta been the deal since they released the first planar book.
Evil is a constant force that exists, alongside good, law and chaos.
I wonder if the people who argue about alignments in D&D know that they are not simple opinions, but actual things. It's why the dead who are left in places infused with Good or Evil can rise up again, powered by the cosmic forces they are subjected to.

>do not murder the wizard and warlock when they torture

Ironically, in 1e/2e you wouldn't have even been allowed to associate with an evil person. If memory serves, it was allowed for you to go on an individual adventure with a Chaotic character if need be. But under no circumstances would a Paladin ever associate with an Evil character.

Anyone who fucks Orcs is evil in my book.

Even more so in OD&D. At that time there was only Law/Neutral/Chaos and they were actual forces/entities and not just ideals. So much so that a person who was Lawful would be able to communicate with another person who was Lawful even if they shared no common language - alignment language was a thing.

Nasty Orc-fucking sluts, Orc-fucking whores are absolutely evil, degenerate bitches who fuck Orcs need to be shunned and cast out.

They weren't evil, even the DM was bewildered by the scene.
The wizard was CN, the warlock CG, and got bumped to CN as a result. My point is that I didn't sperg out on them when I pulled them aside to talk, even tho I did drop 3 or 4 buffs on myself just in case they got violent.
True that, true that.

In D&D;
>Lawful
Interested in codes and procedures. Generally defaults back to a simple set of rules (good or bad) if there is no structure to work around. Tries to work within existing systems as long as they officially fit his/her moral underpinnings.
>Neutral
Does whatever he/she feels like a good idea at the time is. Will usually follow the law as long as the law keeps working, will stop following the law if he/she feels it doesn’t.
>Chaotic
Isn’t concerned with rules at all, feels restricted by them. If given a choice between a system that works or just doing his/her own thing, will nearly always do his/her own thing on sheer reflex. No personal set of rules by default, acts on impulse based on his/her moral code.
>Good
Actively interested in making life better for other people. Helping people needs no justification in their mind because the act itself is worthy. Not necessarily selfless, but no one would call them selfish.
>Neutral
Not really concerned with “right” or “wrong”, more concerned with personal stuff. Not opposed to helping others but probably won’t go too far out of their way unless there’s something in it for them. Sometimes also the “non-interventionist” belief who tries to stay out of things.
>Evil
Actively selfish. Between himself/herself and others, will always pick himself/herself. Might help other people, but will largely do so for own reasons, such as saving a lover because it is THEIR lover, etc. Perfectly capable of positive emotions but truly healthy interpersonal relationships are rare due to how self-absorbed they are. If given a choice between something that might benefit them but hurt others or something that would help others but might hurt them, they will think of themselves first nearly every time.

So in the other words if I'm playing a normal, sane human being with an above average intelligence I should always default to Neutral Neutral, correct?

A normal human being of below average intelligence too, in fact. Most folks are Lawful Neutral or True Neutral. They aren’t precisely selfish, but they aren’t really dedicated to helping other people either. Most will tell themselves they are Good for self-satisfaction reasons.
That said there’s a surprising number of Good average people who will help you if they can. For many it’s not a lack of desire but a lack of ability or power; they can’t fight crime, they don’t have the money to devote to charity, they have to work so much that they can’t really actively help people, but if given a chance to lend a little bit of aid a lot will do so expecting no rewards at all.

But it has everything to do with real life morality and ethics. There are no concrete "game rules" of what makes you evil or good.

i think most people are LN or CN, but only slightly so in ethier direction. actual TN is probably less common, mostly apathy towards ethier way and only cares about getting by. there is too many things not to lean torwards one way or another a tinge at least.

considering that business owners and the vast majority of government officials steal from the common man (so to speak) on a daily basis it doesn't seem strange to mark them evil

You should open up the book to the Alignment section and read a few of the examples.

Needlessly acting in a way that you know has negative consequences for people who did not agree to suffer those consequences.
If you are an elected official and need to make a new tax that you know will hurt a portion of your people but try to soften the blow with aids or leases, etc. You're not evil, even if some people starve.
If you're a nobody and want to make a world where everyone has ear piercings so you overthrow the gorvernment and force everyone to get ear piercings. You're evil, even if it's just fleeting pain.

>Evil
Looks Chaotic Edgy to me, not Evil