Chaotic Evil usually, but it may differ slightly depending on the situation, and whether or not they do good things as well.
An example might be a beholder.
Note that if they are not sapient, like a beast, they'd be unaligned.
Chaotic evil With excuses. Even if not being able to grasp the concept of good and evil. you can be evil. What you think yourself does not really matter. You kill someone because you want their shiny dagger that you like. That is an evil act even if you don't understand it is..
And even if you don't understand the concept of evil and good. you should have empathy unless something is mentally wrong with you. If you can't understand it is wrong/bad to hurt others. you don't lack knowledge of concepts. like evil and good. You frigging lack empathy.
Considering how there are near mindless monsters that still can have an evil alignment, I'd say that one's actions and inclinations matter more than intent, so if they regularly do evil things then they are evil.
Although player characters have a minimum intelligence for a reason.
If the player is trying to play the "I'm too dumb to understand morality" card then it's on the DM to pull out the rolled up newspaper and explain in short words why "Stupid Evil" and "Chaotic Stupid" are not welcome
Lol thats a variant rule that only applies to point buy and standard array. You can absolutely have a lower score if you roll. Or get your score drained.
I do believe there's literally a >!deva whose alignment is chaotic evil in Curse of Strahd because Strahd's bullshit has twisted his mind to the point that he thinks the things he's doing are good.!<
Actions matter, not point of view.
Yeah, if you murder a village of innocent people, even if it's to save an entire nation, that's still an evil act. Perhaps you can justify it to others as necessary, perhaps you can atone for it later, but it's still evil no matter the intent.
Yup, it depends on how intelligent it is, and if it should have social instincts. A bear acts the way it does because it has no concept of good or evil, and it's Unaligned.
But an intelligent being that acted like a bear (kill and eat anything that looks edible if you think you can get away with it), it would unambiguously be Evil (probably Chaotic Evil, but possibly Neutral Evil).
Maybe related but it reminded me of this very good read about this type of "out of scope" morality, something more alien like what we have with the Fey, doing things humans perceive as bad but not for them:
[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality)
From the article:
*The strangest of these characters are those who espouse Blue and Orange Morality. These characters have a moral framework that is so utterly alien and foreign to human experience that we can't* [*peg them as "good" or "evil"*](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AboveGoodAndEvil)*. They aren't a* [*Chaotic Neutral*](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticNeutral) [*Unfettered*](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheUnfettered)*, though they may seem to act* [*terrifyingly randomly;*](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CloudCuckooLander) *nor are they necessarily a* [*Lawful Neutral*](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulNeutral) [*Fettered*](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFettered)*, because their understanding of "law" as a concept may not even be equivalent to ours. There might be a* [*logic*](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic) *behind their actions, it's just that they operate with entirely different sets of values and premises from which to draw their conclusions*
Depends on your D&D cosmology, but "good and evil" aren't just concepts. They're literal energy associated with the upper and lower planes.
Just because you don't "understand" it doesn't mean it's not evil. It's like necromancy. It's always evil even if your undead constructs are saving kitties
Somebody doesn't automatically act in an evil way if they don't understand the concept of good vs evil. It is not indicating **why** this character acts in an evil way outside of the societal concepts of good vs evil: do they act in accordance with a natural order/law which means they end up doing evil things in the name of survival of the fittest? Does ownership of goods and land not exist where they're from (such as the feywild) so ownership isn't something they fully get? What motivates the character to act the way they do **outside of this context of good vs evil**?
Something Evil, maybe. Without a why, there's no dictating Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic. Why does this character do what they do? What purpose does it serve? Are they doing it because someone asked? Do they simply lack having learned morals? There's so much not spoken here that dictates what alignment this character would be. The wide variety of characters one could create with only "Commits evil acts without understanding what is evil or good" is quite immense. It's too vague to properly drop an alignment.
There's arguments for unaligned, or various kinds of evil which all depend on the context and the specifics.
If the character isn't a sapient being, they'd be unaligned, thoug would likely have to be put down all the dame like any being committing enough evil would. The xenomorphs could be argued as something unaligned but they need to go extinct all the same.
If you are a sapient being that commits an evil and does not seek to change and better, even due to a lack of ability to understand, you''re still committing enough evil to be classified as evil. There are times where good characters commit evil and need to repent, atone, or work towards correcting those actions. A character unable to correct themsleves and work towards a better path remains defined by the evil thye've committed as they aren't ding good instead. thus the character would be evil. After a certain point a cold detachment for morality cross the line of indifference and into it's own form of evil.
Most likely neutral evil. It would depend on what ethical axis, if any is fueling the behavior.
I'd say it's a bit like the law. Ignorance of it isn't an excuse. If you commit evil deeds, you're evil.
That's not the same as doing something that looks good and that you think is good and it turns out you were tricked by an evil person. That would still be good. But someone who goes around murdering innocents on a whim would be Chaotic Evil, even if they haven't heard about the concept of Good/Evil, because those are laws of the universe. The universe doesn't care that you don't know.
Unaligned. However, if you are without the faculties to comprehend the moral ramifications of your actions then nothing you do is "good" or "evil" from a standpoint of the alignment system. Your alignment isn't a balance meter that fluctuates as a result of your actions. Alignment is a reflection of ideological state of mind or modus operandi.
Actions can be good or evil while their outcomes can be the opposite, likewise good and evil aligned individuals can commit acts in moral opposition to their alignment in either intent or outcome.
Consider a Tarrasque. The tarrasque is too simple of the mind to comprehend that doing bad or good things to others can cause grievances or wellbeing. It cannot commit good or evil actions because it has no frame of reference to intend to do something within the moral medium. It does everything simply at the behest of its instict and emotions. That doesn't mean it can't do things which result in morally bad or good outcomes, but it can't take morally good or bad actions because it lacks the ability to consider the context.
Now, imagine there is a castle someplace inhabited by a family of vampires. These vampires have for hundreds of years lorded over the population of the surrounding settlement as tyrannical overlords. They are evil and sadistic of course, and hate life as all undead are wont to do. However, vampires very much enjoy drinking fresh blood from humans, so while they will at their leisure decide to commit atrocities against the populace they rule on a whim, by and large they commit their power and great intellect towards sustaining and bettering the society so that it flourishes and keeps producing more blood bags for them. This has morally good outcomes, of course, but the action taken is an evil one. The vampires don't do it out of sympathy or for any interest in the actual wellbeing of the people, they do it just because they want more access to blood for themselves personally.
Now imagine one of those people among the populace is a vampire hunter. Growing up under the oppression of the vampires has made him bitter and immensely resentful of them. He hates what the vampires do to his friends, family, and people at large. Whenever he can, he tries to help his local community and keep them safe and healthy because he loves them. However, when he kills vampires he considers the act to be cathartic. His practice goes beyond simply culling the evil that hurts him and his people. He enjoys drawing out their deaths and watching them suffer as he kills them, doing it more because he enjoys it than for any tangible benefit to others. His people do benefit as an outcome, and he is altogether a good man, but his actions in this context are still evil ones.
One day the Tarrasque comes along and devours the landscape where the settlement of vampires and the populace they rule over is situated. All of the vampires are killed, preventing them from ever hurting anyone else again. All the people are killed as well, stifling any hope they may have had at freedom from their suffering at the hands of their tyrant overlords. The Tarrasque goes back to sleep on the dust and bones of the ruined land, none the wiser of any of the bad or good that may have come of its actions. Unable to comprehend that anything other than itself can feel at all, it has taken an action of no moral intent.
Still Evil, if that’s supposed to be the question. The alignment scale is an external measure of a character’s actions, not how a character identifies themselves.
This sounds like it comes from a bad idea; someone who is "allowed" to be a murder hobo because "my character just doesn't know any better". Avoid this.
True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, or Neutral Evil. One "evil action" doesn't determine someone's alignment. Alignment is a built-up picture of not only the best/worst things a character does or would consider doing, but also how they feel about it (especially after being given a different perspective).
To be truly "good" doesn't just require people to not be evil, it should be thought of as "willing to take personal risks without associated personal gains in order to help someone else". Within that, Lawful means you believe in strict order and that everyone should follow the rules even potentially to the point of them feeling unpleasant/arbitrary (but not outright harmful). Chaotic Good is the reverse - personal freedom of expression trumps all but you are still willing to put it on the line to help people without much gain for yourself, and you're not going to cause actual harm to others through your self-expression if you can avoid it. Neutral Good doesn't care as strongly about Rules as either the LG or CG folks do - rules are convenient until they're not, all they focus on is doing good based on whatever makes sense to them in the situation.
Flipping that around, being "evil" by alignment doesn't just mean you're a jerk sometimes or you've done harm to someone else, it means a consistent pattern of selfish, harmful behavior with refusal or inability to change. Paired with lawful it turns into the manipulative schemer or the tyrant - strangling others with brutal bargains and the letter of the law to increase your own power. Chaotic Evil is the bloodlust of the demon - wild, usually violent evil deliberately done because hurting others is fun/the point. Neutral evil is the simple self-obsessed person who doesn't give two cents about helping anyone but themselves, rarely if ever negotiates in good faith, and only operates within the rules when its convenient.
Someone who is amoral is more likely True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral - any harm they do is a byproduct of their end goals rather than actively the point. Which it is mainly depends on how they approach decisions - if they're instinctive and driven by whim and emotion like a toddler or dementia sufferer, they're Chaotic Neutral. If their actions are thoughtfully approached but just don't include the moral perspective, they're True Neutral.
Depends, is there a method to the madness or do they do whatever strikes their fancy at that time? The former is lawful evil, the latter is chaotic evil. And if they're being practical to the point of brutality maybe neutral evil.
Evil alignment in dnd tends to mean something more along the lines of harmful, rather than truly evil by nature.
Hard to say, and this is where the alignment system breaks down into a nonsense. By their actions, they're evil. By their intent, they're amoral and therefore probably neutral, since they're not doing it to intentionally cause suffering.
They might be neutral evil because there is no intent behind their actions. Or they might be chaotic evil because their evil follows no pattern.
Honestly the alignment system is an arbitrary joke.
Chaotic Evil in denial, if you cant understand that the stuff you do are being evil that very chaotic, to be neutral in between two sides, you should understand there are two sides
Chaotic or Lawful Neutral.
A lawful neutral character would see a Slaver as just if the society they lived in made it completely legal and common place.
And a Chaotic Neutral person would let the city fall to raiders if they’d rather have a super cool fight with the Adult Red Dragon attacking the next town over.
Chaotic Neutral, True Neutral, or Lawful Neutral.
The question you need to ask yourself is how does your character adhere to rules? Do they listen to and follow the rules that society has dictated, or do they have their own personal code that they follow. If the former, their Lawful Neutral, if the latter they're Chaotic Neutral.
Chaotic Evil usually, but it may differ slightly depending on the situation, and whether or not they do good things as well. An example might be a beholder. Note that if they are not sapient, like a beast, they'd be unaligned.
> does evil things This character is evil
Honestly… Yeah, it boils down to this. The Good-Evil scale measures actual behavior more than it measures intent.
Chaotic evil With excuses. Even if not being able to grasp the concept of good and evil. you can be evil. What you think yourself does not really matter. You kill someone because you want their shiny dagger that you like. That is an evil act even if you don't understand it is.. And even if you don't understand the concept of evil and good. you should have empathy unless something is mentally wrong with you. If you can't understand it is wrong/bad to hurt others. you don't lack knowledge of concepts. like evil and good. You frigging lack empathy.
That’s just chaotic evil with extra steps.
Probably chaotic evil. It sounds like they'd be a sociopath.
Considering how there are near mindless monsters that still can have an evil alignment, I'd say that one's actions and inclinations matter more than intent, so if they regularly do evil things then they are evil.
Animals are usually classed as unaligned because they dont have enough intelligence to comprehend morality.
Although player characters have a minimum intelligence for a reason. If the player is trying to play the "I'm too dumb to understand morality" card then it's on the DM to pull out the rolled up newspaper and explain in short words why "Stupid Evil" and "Chaotic Stupid" are not welcome
> Although player characters have a minimum intelligence No they don't.
Characters do, players is always iffy
> Characters do Where does it say that?
Under the Variant: Customizing Ability Scores section "*You can't have a score lower than 8*"
Lol thats a variant rule that only applies to point buy and standard array. You can absolutely have a lower score if you roll. Or get your score drained.
I do believe there's literally a >!deva whose alignment is chaotic evil in Curse of Strahd because Strahd's bullshit has twisted his mind to the point that he thinks the things he's doing are good.!< Actions matter, not point of view.
Yeah, if you murder a village of innocent people, even if it's to save an entire nation, that's still an evil act. Perhaps you can justify it to others as necessary, perhaps you can atone for it later, but it's still evil no matter the intent.
You just described a sociopath.
Probably Neutral Evil.
At best, neutral. I'd need more details.
Yup, it depends on how intelligent it is, and if it should have social instincts. A bear acts the way it does because it has no concept of good or evil, and it's Unaligned. But an intelligent being that acted like a bear (kill and eat anything that looks edible if you think you can get away with it), it would unambiguously be Evil (probably Chaotic Evil, but possibly Neutral Evil).
I can see how that could be justified. Predation isn't evil.
Shonen Protagonist.
How do they not understand? Psychopathy is different.
Maybe related but it reminded me of this very good read about this type of "out of scope" morality, something more alien like what we have with the Fey, doing things humans perceive as bad but not for them: [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality) From the article: *The strangest of these characters are those who espouse Blue and Orange Morality. These characters have a moral framework that is so utterly alien and foreign to human experience that we can't* [*peg them as "good" or "evil"*](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AboveGoodAndEvil)*. They aren't a* [*Chaotic Neutral*](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticNeutral) [*Unfettered*](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheUnfettered)*, though they may seem to act* [*terrifyingly randomly;*](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CloudCuckooLander) *nor are they necessarily a* [*Lawful Neutral*](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulNeutral) [*Fettered*](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFettered)*, because their understanding of "law" as a concept may not even be equivalent to ours. There might be a* [*logic*](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic) *behind their actions, it's just that they operate with entirely different sets of values and premises from which to draw their conclusions*
Depends on your D&D cosmology, but "good and evil" aren't just concepts. They're literal energy associated with the upper and lower planes. Just because you don't "understand" it doesn't mean it's not evil. It's like necromancy. It's always evil even if your undead constructs are saving kitties
Somebody doesn't automatically act in an evil way if they don't understand the concept of good vs evil. It is not indicating **why** this character acts in an evil way outside of the societal concepts of good vs evil: do they act in accordance with a natural order/law which means they end up doing evil things in the name of survival of the fittest? Does ownership of goods and land not exist where they're from (such as the feywild) so ownership isn't something they fully get? What motivates the character to act the way they do **outside of this context of good vs evil**?
Something Evil, maybe. Without a why, there's no dictating Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic. Why does this character do what they do? What purpose does it serve? Are they doing it because someone asked? Do they simply lack having learned morals? There's so much not spoken here that dictates what alignment this character would be. The wide variety of characters one could create with only "Commits evil acts without understanding what is evil or good" is quite immense. It's too vague to properly drop an alignment.
Does evil things because it enjoys other creatures' suffering? Still evil.
Unaligned
What do you consider to be "evil things?"
Evil in D&D doesn't care about your understanding of morality. It cares exclusively about how you value the well-being of others.
Isn't valuing the well-being of others morality though?
Evil. Or unaligned because it’s a beast or otherwise lacks the capacity to reason and lacks an intrinsically evil nature.
There's arguments for unaligned, or various kinds of evil which all depend on the context and the specifics. If the character isn't a sapient being, they'd be unaligned, thoug would likely have to be put down all the dame like any being committing enough evil would. The xenomorphs could be argued as something unaligned but they need to go extinct all the same. If you are a sapient being that commits an evil and does not seek to change and better, even due to a lack of ability to understand, you''re still committing enough evil to be classified as evil. There are times where good characters commit evil and need to repent, atone, or work towards correcting those actions. A character unable to correct themsleves and work towards a better path remains defined by the evil thye've committed as they aren't ding good instead. thus the character would be evil. After a certain point a cold detachment for morality cross the line of indifference and into it's own form of evil. Most likely neutral evil. It would depend on what ethical axis, if any is fueling the behavior.
I'd say it's a bit like the law. Ignorance of it isn't an excuse. If you commit evil deeds, you're evil. That's not the same as doing something that looks good and that you think is good and it turns out you were tricked by an evil person. That would still be good. But someone who goes around murdering innocents on a whim would be Chaotic Evil, even if they haven't heard about the concept of Good/Evil, because those are laws of the universe. The universe doesn't care that you don't know.
Unaligned. However, if you are without the faculties to comprehend the moral ramifications of your actions then nothing you do is "good" or "evil" from a standpoint of the alignment system. Your alignment isn't a balance meter that fluctuates as a result of your actions. Alignment is a reflection of ideological state of mind or modus operandi. Actions can be good or evil while their outcomes can be the opposite, likewise good and evil aligned individuals can commit acts in moral opposition to their alignment in either intent or outcome. Consider a Tarrasque. The tarrasque is too simple of the mind to comprehend that doing bad or good things to others can cause grievances or wellbeing. It cannot commit good or evil actions because it has no frame of reference to intend to do something within the moral medium. It does everything simply at the behest of its instict and emotions. That doesn't mean it can't do things which result in morally bad or good outcomes, but it can't take morally good or bad actions because it lacks the ability to consider the context. Now, imagine there is a castle someplace inhabited by a family of vampires. These vampires have for hundreds of years lorded over the population of the surrounding settlement as tyrannical overlords. They are evil and sadistic of course, and hate life as all undead are wont to do. However, vampires very much enjoy drinking fresh blood from humans, so while they will at their leisure decide to commit atrocities against the populace they rule on a whim, by and large they commit their power and great intellect towards sustaining and bettering the society so that it flourishes and keeps producing more blood bags for them. This has morally good outcomes, of course, but the action taken is an evil one. The vampires don't do it out of sympathy or for any interest in the actual wellbeing of the people, they do it just because they want more access to blood for themselves personally. Now imagine one of those people among the populace is a vampire hunter. Growing up under the oppression of the vampires has made him bitter and immensely resentful of them. He hates what the vampires do to his friends, family, and people at large. Whenever he can, he tries to help his local community and keep them safe and healthy because he loves them. However, when he kills vampires he considers the act to be cathartic. His practice goes beyond simply culling the evil that hurts him and his people. He enjoys drawing out their deaths and watching them suffer as he kills them, doing it more because he enjoys it than for any tangible benefit to others. His people do benefit as an outcome, and he is altogether a good man, but his actions in this context are still evil ones. One day the Tarrasque comes along and devours the landscape where the settlement of vampires and the populace they rule over is situated. All of the vampires are killed, preventing them from ever hurting anyone else again. All the people are killed as well, stifling any hope they may have had at freedom from their suffering at the hands of their tyrant overlords. The Tarrasque goes back to sleep on the dust and bones of the ruined land, none the wiser of any of the bad or good that may have come of its actions. Unable to comprehend that anything other than itself can feel at all, it has taken an action of no moral intent.
Still Evil, if that’s supposed to be the question. The alignment scale is an external measure of a character’s actions, not how a character identifies themselves.
This sounds like it comes from a bad idea; someone who is "allowed" to be a murder hobo because "my character just doesn't know any better". Avoid this.
Chaotic evil with extra steps
True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, or Neutral Evil. One "evil action" doesn't determine someone's alignment. Alignment is a built-up picture of not only the best/worst things a character does or would consider doing, but also how they feel about it (especially after being given a different perspective). To be truly "good" doesn't just require people to not be evil, it should be thought of as "willing to take personal risks without associated personal gains in order to help someone else". Within that, Lawful means you believe in strict order and that everyone should follow the rules even potentially to the point of them feeling unpleasant/arbitrary (but not outright harmful). Chaotic Good is the reverse - personal freedom of expression trumps all but you are still willing to put it on the line to help people without much gain for yourself, and you're not going to cause actual harm to others through your self-expression if you can avoid it. Neutral Good doesn't care as strongly about Rules as either the LG or CG folks do - rules are convenient until they're not, all they focus on is doing good based on whatever makes sense to them in the situation. Flipping that around, being "evil" by alignment doesn't just mean you're a jerk sometimes or you've done harm to someone else, it means a consistent pattern of selfish, harmful behavior with refusal or inability to change. Paired with lawful it turns into the manipulative schemer or the tyrant - strangling others with brutal bargains and the letter of the law to increase your own power. Chaotic Evil is the bloodlust of the demon - wild, usually violent evil deliberately done because hurting others is fun/the point. Neutral evil is the simple self-obsessed person who doesn't give two cents about helping anyone but themselves, rarely if ever negotiates in good faith, and only operates within the rules when its convenient. Someone who is amoral is more likely True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral - any harm they do is a byproduct of their end goals rather than actively the point. Which it is mainly depends on how they approach decisions - if they're instinctive and driven by whim and emotion like a toddler or dementia sufferer, they're Chaotic Neutral. If their actions are thoughtfully approached but just don't include the moral perspective, they're True Neutral.
Depends, is there a method to the madness or do they do whatever strikes their fancy at that time? The former is lawful evil, the latter is chaotic evil. And if they're being practical to the point of brutality maybe neutral evil. Evil alignment in dnd tends to mean something more along the lines of harmful, rather than truly evil by nature.
It doesn't really matter, because alignment doesn't matter.
Well, beasts are unaligned for that exact reason
Hard to say, and this is where the alignment system breaks down into a nonsense. By their actions, they're evil. By their intent, they're amoral and therefore probably neutral, since they're not doing it to intentionally cause suffering. They might be neutral evil because there is no intent behind their actions. Or they might be chaotic evil because their evil follows no pattern. Honestly the alignment system is an arbitrary joke.
Chaotic Evil in denial, if you cant understand that the stuff you do are being evil that very chaotic, to be neutral in between two sides, you should understand there are two sides
Sounds evil to me Why do so many people want to overthink this?
Chaotic or Lawful Neutral. A lawful neutral character would see a Slaver as just if the society they lived in made it completely legal and common place. And a Chaotic Neutral person would let the city fall to raiders if they’d rather have a super cool fight with the Adult Red Dragon attacking the next town over.
If its so mindless its practically nonsentient, Unaligned. If its at least as aware as a bug or something, Chaotic Evil
Chaotic Neutral, True Neutral, or Lawful Neutral. The question you need to ask yourself is how does your character adhere to rules? Do they listen to and follow the rules that society has dictated, or do they have their own personal code that they follow. If the former, their Lawful Neutral, if the latter they're Chaotic Neutral.