What is EVIL?

[Trickery]

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.

There's a difference between having an evil goal and pursuing it for evil reasons. Otherwise you'll have to conclude that almost all of our ancestors are evil for glorifying war and wanting to wipe each other out.

Or maybe I can express this in a different way. is murder evil? There's a big difference between murdering the person who killed your family versus being the guy who murdered that person's family.

Intent is what makes a thing evil. If you merely think evil means doing something that has a negative outcome, then you first have to explain what negative means. Regardless, you end up with everything being evil and nothing being evil, depending on your perspective, because outcomes are relative. Intent isn't. Intent can't be proven, but we know exactly what evil intent looks like.

[Xihirli]

Aboleth are Lawful Evil. Their intent is to take back the empire they had before the gods defeated them. They try to accomplish their goal by means of brainwashing, subjugation, murder, torture, and deception.
Is there anything inherently evil about them forming an empire?
Well, that empire would be filled with slaves and destroy all civilizations the Aboleth could reach their tentacles around.
But the Aboleth don’t believe in the rights of other beings. Just like beholders and mind flayers don’t. In their mind, they are doing good - recreating the perfect civilization controlled by the heirs apparent to Piscaethces.
If evil was strictly intent, almost none of the creatures in D&D with “evil” in their names would be evil. Neothelids have the same intelligence score as about half the beasts in the monster manual and are only driven by their instincts just like a T-Rex. The difference? Neothelids explicitly feed on sapient life when they have the choice. Not because they’re sadists, but because it tastes better. Therefore evil cannot just be intent, it must look at results.

[Yakmala]

Evil is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

I once played a Lawful Evil agent of the Lord's Alliance, who in his mind, was constantly working for the greater good.

In his mind, good means protecting civilization from the the many evils that seek to destroy it. To him, civilization is a grand design, not an individual. He'd willingly sacrifice a village to save a town, a town to save a city. When the weak die facing the forces of barbarism that prey on society, he doesn't shed any tears. The strong survived, and by being strong, will bolster civilization as a whole, passing their knowledge and physical prowess onto their children.

And those who he considers the enemies of civilization, the orcs, goblinoids, giants, barbarians, etc, are shown no mercy. To let them live risks good citizens dying in the future. He realizes that other party members [good alignments] are often too squeamish to do what needs to be done, so, being altruistic [in his own mind] he gladly takes that burden upon himself, putting the prisoners to the sword.

[Particle_Man]

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.

Well in the standard D&D realm there are evil and good things in the absolute and objective sense. Evil here is as real as fire.

[Tanarii]

Typically methodically taking what you want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.

Typically doing whatever you can get away with, without compassion or qualms.

Typically acting with arbitrary violence, spurred by your greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

[blackjack50]

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.

But at the end...you are still putting yourself above others. You can be empathic, but you must always come first. And that willingness to harm others of course. But it is about YOU. You are the most important being.

[Lord Raziere]

I'd say Evil is the inability to feel guilt for your actions.

The difference between a good person trying do what they see as right and an evil person doing what they see is right, is that when confronted with evidence that its not working and is only causing more suffering than it fixes, the good person stops.

while an evil person will just continue doing it, coming up with justifications to keep going no matter what the cost.

thats why good people draw lines they won't cross. and evil does not.

[False God]

Good and evil is about the value of others relative to the self.

Good sees others as higher value, with numbers representing ever increasing value. The more people in question, the higher their relative value to the self.

Evil sees others as lower value, with increasing numbers representing even lower value. The more people in question, the more they are regarded as useful idiots.

[Damon_Tor]

I'd say Evil is the inability to feel guilt for your actions.

The difference between a good person trying do what they see as right and an evil person doing what they see is right, is that when confronted with evidence that its not working and is only causing more suffering than it fixes, the good person stops.

while an evil person will just continue doing it, coming up with justifications to keep going no matter what the cost.

thats why good people draw lines they won't cross. and evil does not.

What would be your position on a person who feels no guilt and yet leads a virtuous life?

Not wanting to feel bad about something seems like a rather selfish reason for avoiding harming others.

[Lord Raziere]

What would be your position on a person who feels no guilt and yet leads a virtuous life?

Not wanting to feel bad about something seems like a rather selfish reason for avoiding harming others.

My position is that despite the moral importance of internal reasons to morality, is that an outside perspective of a person is the only perspective we have of judging anyone's actions. its why judges and courts need evidence that is not tampered with and so on. if a person leads a virtuous life already, the point is moot, they are by all appearances being a good person.

its only when we get evidence that the person is deceiving us that we know that they are evil. its why we don't like deception, because it messes with the only way we have of truly judging anyone, and why its considered bad to lie, because we have to assume innocent until proven guilty. alignment does not change this, especially in 5e where you can no longer detect evil.

morality is ultimately beholden to the information we have to make decisions upon, which is ultimately dependent on our perceptions. sometimes we have to have faith that appearances are what they seem and hope there is no dark thing under the mask.

its not something that....has a perfect solution.

[Naanomi]

Cosmological Evil in the Outer Planes sense (and, arguably, most of the mechanical ways we still see alignment) has components of actual typical behavior, intent and motivation of that behavior, reflection after behavior, hypothetical behavior... and some mystical factors as well... but isn’t entirely tied to any of them in a way that mortals can easily fully understand or accurately model

[sithlordnergal]

Well in the standard D&D realm there are evil and good things in the absolute and objective sense. Evil here is as real as fire.

Heh, I never run games like that. Sometimes it confuses players, sometimes it doesn't.

[Shoreward]

Let me preface this by saying I am by no means an authority on ethics. This is a complex question and I think what it comes down to is the reader's personal standard or school of ethical philosophy. Is intent the defining factor? The number of people who benefit from an act vs the number who don’t? The act itself, independent of its result or reasons?

As I read it, D&D has a way it defines Evil which, in brief, boils down to whether or not your character values life as a given in pursuit of their goals.

Good tends to care about the safety, happiness, and dignity of life, and weighs that when making choices. They care about those around them, and even if they don’t like them as people, those people still deserve the best if it can be provided without hurting anyone. They don’t revoke that respect, even if they must end a life out of necessity. All death and suffering is regrettable.

Neutral mostly cares, but only within the sphere of its immediate reach or in-groups. Sure, people deserve happiness, safety, and life, but they try not to think beyond what they can provide. Heck, some people are jerks. Creatures can absolutely have that respect revoked when they reveal they deserve it, and they won’t be too upset if a bad person carks it.

Evil doesn’t care. Evil may still love and have friendships, but it doesn’t respect the sanctity of life as a given. A thing is not deserving of respect and admiration until it proves that it is, and that respect can be revoked at any time. Creatures are not automatically ‘deserving’ of life and happiness, they have to earn it. Death may be regrettable, but from a personal sense, not a broader moral one.

My point is, Evil doesn’t take the last slice of pizza, it takes the whole box and makes you fight over it.

[Trickery]

I think part of the confusion is that 5e didn't give us good alignment definitions. Maybe the 3rd edition definition would be more helpful.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Or, evil is as evil does. That seems to be the D&D interpretation of the matter.

[TyGuy]

Evil
adjective
1.
profoundly immoral and wicked.
"his evil deeds"
synonyms: wicked, bad, wrong, morally wrong, wrongful, immoral, sinful, ungodly, unholy, foul, vile, base, ignoble, dishonorable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, degenerate, villainous, nefarious, sinister, vicious, malicious, malevolent, demonic, devilish, diabolic, diabolical, fiendish, dark, black-hearted

noun
1.
profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.
"the world is stalked by relentless evil"
synonyms: wickedness, bad, badness, wrong, wrongdoing, sin, sinfulness, ungodliness, immorality, vice, iniquity, turpitude, degeneracy, vileness, baseness, perversion, corruption, depravity, villainy, nefariousness, atrocity, malevolence, devilishness

Immoral
adjective
not conforming to accepted standards of morality.
"an immoral and unwinnable war"
synonyms: unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous, disreputable, fraudulent, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, unfair, underhand, devious; sinful, impure, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, degenerate, debauched, abandoned, dissolute, reprobate, perverted, indecent, lewd, licentious, wanton, bawdy, lustful, promiscuous, whorish

To define evil you have to define morality. Since we're hardly philosophers and we wouldn't agree even if we were it's probably best to stick to the big obvious items.
Theft
Violence (initiated)
Rape
Fraud
Vandalism
Threatening the above

[Tanarii]

As I read it, D&D has a way it defines Evil which, in brief, boils down to whether or not your character values life as a given in pursuit of their goals.

What are you reading that makes you believe this?

My reading is that Good generally believes in both being morally right and not being selfish. Even Chaotic Good, they just believe in determining what's morally right individually. And Evil is always exceedingly selfish, although they may justify it.

I'm reading the PHB 9 alignment typical behavior descriptions to arrive at that. Because that's all D&D 5e gives us to define "what is EVIL?"

---------

(As a note, it's fairly typically that this thread is two pages in on a 5e forum, and I'm the only person to have provided the 5e answer.)

[GlenSmash!]

There's a difference between having an evil goal and pursuing it for evil reasons. Otherwise you'll have to conclude that almost all of our ancestors are evil for glorifying war and wanting to wipe each other out.

I actually think that is true yes.

Or maybe I can express this in a different way. is murder evil? There's a big difference between murdering the person who killed your family versus being the guy who murdered that person's family.

Certainly but when you murder everyone of the same race as the person who murdered your family "for the greater good" regardless of your intent it's evil.

Intent is what makes a thing evil. If you merely think evil means doing something that has a negative outcome, then you first have to explain what negative means. Regardless, you end up with everything being evil and nothing being evil, depending on your perspective, because outcomes are relative. Intent isn't. Intent can't be proven, but we know exactly what evil intent looks like.

Thee's in an age old proverb about pavement and Intent and where it leads.

[Waterdeep Merch]

All language is ambiguous by nature, and deciding on where the edges align and fray will always differ from people to people, culture to culture, group to group, and person to person. You can't have a concrete answer; it will have to be arbitrated, and the more it happens, the more arguments will inevitably crop up as a result. Attempting to have a concrete answer anyway will always, without fail, make for dubious cases that will require you to rethink the entire definition or just accept that there will always be exceptions, and that those exceptions won't always be fully agreed upon.

Even if you strongly disagree with them, just accept the DM's opinion at the table for whatever label they want to throw around. Their opinion is as good as any other, really. It should have no bearing on what your character thinks of themselves, nor should it constrain their thoughts or deeds.

[Trickery]

Thee's in an age old proverb about pavement and Intent and where it leads.

Which is why laws are laws generally regardless of intent. We have to make a distinction between evil and good versus chaotic and lawful. Laws are what happens when we try to codify fair play, but we all know that laws are subject to abuse - that's why judges have leeway.

But I do think we're getting a bit off-topic. As far as D&D is concerned, the act itself is what makes an action good or evil, and it lays out some things that it considers to be good and some others it considers to be evil in the 3rd edition definitions. So I still think the 3e alignment system was much better-explained.

[GlenSmash!]

Which is why laws are laws generally regardless of intent.

In developed nations this is true, in wartorn regions and throughout most of human history it was not.

We have to make a distinction between evil and good versus chaotic and lawful.

I do though I know mine is different from most peoples definitions. For me the good and evil axis is defined my personal morality, ie this is what I choose to do, and the law vs chaos axis is defined as worldview ie this is how the world should work. To me a chaotic good character personally does good but does not think their definition of goodness needs to be enforced by society. A lawful good character personally does good and thinks that society would be better if laws enforced that goodness. Likewise chaotic evil will engage in evil regardless of the bounds of society while lawful evil will try to force society to serve their needs.

Laws are what happens when we try to codify fair play,

I think for most of human history this is false. Laws primarily existed to legitimize practices that were evil, such as slavery, and exercise control over those who had less power than the few who consolidated power. Only very recently has that changed.

but we all know that laws are subject to abuse - that's why judges have leeway.

I think this is also a recent development in history.

But I do think we're getting a bit off-topic. As far as D&D is concerned, the act itself is what makes an action good or evil, and it lays out some things that it considers to be good and some others it considers to be evil in the 3rd edition definitions. So I still think the 3e alignment system was much better-explained.

I actually love 5E's alignment changes.

Now it's two sentences to help guide roleplaying. Becoming descriptive rather than prescriptive. So that personal definition above is just foe me. I don't think it needs to apply to anyone else.

However the OP asked "What is EVIL?" not "How do I so evil in 5e?" to answer the latter question I think Tanarii nailed it.

[Hail Tempus]

Which is why laws are laws generally regardless of intent. We have to make a distinction between evil and good versus chaotic and lawful. Laws are what happens when we try to codify fair play, but we all know that laws are subject to abuse - that's why judges have leeway.

The intent (or mental state) of an accused is one of the main factors in determining whether they committed a crime and, if so, its severity.

Someone who, for example, commits a pre-meditated murder of a witness to prevent them from testifying is more culpable, morally and legally, than someone whose intention was to beat up someone in a bar fight, but ends up killing them instead.

In the D&D approach to evil alignments, Lawful Evil characters would be the most morally culpable for their evil actions, since they're typically portrayed as thinking through their crimes beforehand. Strahd von Zarovich plans his evil acts out ahead of time, while a Chaotic Evil Demon is more of a creature of impulse.

[GlenSmash!]

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.

If you are only considering the worldly consequences of your actions this is true, but on a cosmological scale it might not be.

If you wipe out a city to save a nation or win a war you the net effect of your action in the world may indeed be greater good, but what about the price of the soul. in a cosmic sense it may be better to lose more lives to whatever afterlives await them than to risk damaging one's chance of attaining that afterlife to save those lives. After all even the worst worldly consequences are finite compared to eternity.

It's an old debate really. Consequentialism vs. Deontological ethics.

[DracoKnight]

This is, I think, one of the most useful dissections of EVIL! I've ever seen, outside of a full on philosophy class.

Spoiler: On Being EEEVIL!

Show

[GlenSmash!]

This is, I think, one of the most useful dissections of EVIL! I've ever seen, outside of a full on philosophy class.

Spoiler: On Being EEEVIL!

Show

I do enjoy discussing it.

For reference I prefer to play Neutral or Evil characters as I find them to be far more interesting (though I never player Chaotic Stupid) than good characters.

For example what about the person who tries to be really good in most situations, but when the chips are down and whenever the moment of truth arrives, while always take the easier evil way out often brutally so. Or as I prefer to think of it "How many people do I need to help to offset the occasional brutal murder?"

[Naanomi]

(As a note, it's fairly typically that this thread is two pages in on a 5e forum, and I'm the only person to have provided the 5e answer.)

And as normal, I’ll remind that alignment still has cosmological and mechanical implications that at the very least stretch those ‘RP guide for typical behavior’ boundaries

[Trickery]

The intent (or mental state) of an accused is one of the main factors in determining whether they committed a crime and, if so, its severity.

Someone who, for example, commits a pre-meditated murder of a witness to prevent them from testifying is more culpable, morally and legally, than someone whose intention was to beat up someone in a bar fight, but ends up killing them instead.

In the D&D approach to evil alignments, Lawful Evil characters would be the most morally culpable for their evil actions, since they're typically portrayed as thinking through their crimes beforehand. Strahd von Zarovich plans his evil acts out ahead of time, while a Chaotic Evil Demon is more of a creature of impulse.

While that's true, it's also true that murder still carries a heavy punishment even when it's accidental. There are degrees to murder, but it's still murder. And not all laws have as much nuance. Our theft laws, for instance, are broken down more by what was stolen and how rather than by the reason it was stolen. Even if you're stealing medicine for your sick daughter, you can be charged.

Regarding lawful evil being worse than chaotic evil, I've never heard that argument before. Nor do I think I've met a player who would feel better about killing a vampire than about killing a demon. if anything, players seem to be more tolerant of sophisticated characters regardless of how evil they are. To use a pop culture example, Darth Vader gets a pass for his behavior because he's cool and articulate, but no reasonable person feels bad for the hoards of orcs killed in Lord of the Rings.

[KorvinStarmast]

Evil is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

The center eye, or one of the stalks?

[Hail Tempus]

Regarding lawful evil being worse than chaotic evil, I've never heard that argument before. Nor do I think I've met a player who would feel better about killing a vampire than about killing a demon. if anything, players seem to be more tolerant of sophisticated characters regardless of how evil they are. To use a pop culture example, Darth Vader gets a pass for his behavior because he's cool and articulate, but no reasonable person feels bad for the hoards of orcs killed in Lord of the Rings.

The Chaotic Evil Demon or Hill Giant is capable, and willing, of performing brutal, senseless acts of violence and depravity, which many Lawful Evil characters would find distasteful. But, generally speaking, Chaotic Evil monsters in D&D are either that way due to their nature (such as Demons) or due to a limited cognitive abilities (Hill Giants).

On the other hand, it's the Lawful Evil characters who make plans and commit large-scale atrocities. They're not creatures of impulse. Cool calculation of evil leads to much higher body counts. To them, the death of a beloved family member or loyal retainer might be a tragedy, but a million dead Dwarves? That's just a statistic.

[Mercurias]

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?

Evil and self-interest are sometimes a matter of degree. A lot of things could be considered evil OR neutral depending on the character and/or the situation, which is one of the reasons these threads all turn into internet yelling matches.

My own DM harpooned me with the fact that my Sorcerer was probably an evil character the other night. After all, he’s been a grifter to get by for years and cares more about his own survival than that of most of the people around him. He might not be a MONSTER, but conning people out of their money is pretty universally considered a bad thing.

I actually liked being called out. It helped me evaluate how I play the game, because a lot of the time lean hard on neutrality for small evils in the game. If you set a pervasive pattern, though, of doing much more harm to people than good, then you’ll end up crossing the line.

[Trickery]

Evil and self-interest are sometimes a matter of degree. A lot of things could be considered evil OR neutral depending on the character and/or the situation, which is one of the reasons these threads all turn into internet yelling matches.

This is a good point. But I'd make the case that, in a civilized society, acting in your own self-interest and being a good citizen are compatible. If you're smart and driven, you can become a surgeon or similar and make a lot of money for yourself while also serving society. Ender's Game had a good example of this kind of character. Ender's brother is all kinds of evil but still ends up serving mankind because doing so was the best thing for him personally. Similarly, Doctor Doom of Marvel fame has, canonically, turned the country he rules into a paradise without crime, hunger, or disease. After all, the better his subjects' lives, the more they'll worship him.

I point this out to show that there's a difference between serving your own interests, which I consider to be neutral, and actively wanting to hurt others, which I consider to be evil.

If merely acting in your own interests with no regard for others is enough for us to call it evil, then we won't have a descriptor strong enough for the terrible things people sometimes do.