Sorcerors are a bit leaning towards... morally questionable magicks. Summoning Daedra or cursing people... not the most goodly of spells, right?
It does make them sort of a counterpart to the "holy-ish" templars, who are all about healing and holy light (and holy magic spears for some reason)

So if you really want to make a "good-ish" sorceror for a "mage" type build, you may want to stick to lightning and look towards mages guild and psijic order to make up for that...

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

"Evil" is generally accepted to mean any action that hurts an innocent party.

What is the definition of "innocent"?
There have been a great many shennannigans with that one, defining someone as "not innocent" and thus "deserving" of being hurt for various reasons.
Because they are deemed "part of a corrupt system" that someone tells you needs to be fought (even if they are just someone doing their job at the wrong time in the wrong place - terrorists love this one).
Because they were -just- like that one person who hurt you once in the past, and while you cannot get the one in the past, you can get this one (serial killers often go with this one).
Because they were somehow in your way, keeping you from what you consider rightfully yours (the classic "underdog" excuse to steal from and murder anyone in their way, also often used by "destiny awaits!" supermacist groups).
Because they are different from you, and someone defines their having a different skin color, religious credo, political opinion or sexual orientation as "threat" to your way of life which you need to defend (the other side to the above, used by those who think defending the status quo is worth any price).
Because someone tells you it is an "either we, or them" kind of situation, as has happened all too often throughout history... no matter if on a national scale (war) or on a group scale (gang violence) or a personal scale (cops "fearing for their life") - often with the added "if they are not with us, they are against us!" detail...

What is the definition of "hurt"?
Often actions that leave no -physical- scars have been and often still are not seen as "hurt" by many people. Especially when it comes to forced sexual contact, which I presume is what you were referring to when the forum censorship struck... and doubly so when it comes to underage contact (the old "helping them explore their sexuality" argument often cited by sexual predators ever since the "summer of love" I would think) or property seizure or damage ("noone got hurt, we just took/destroyed everything those people had been working to build for all their lives, why are they so upset about this?")
Similar arguments have been used for a great many other things that people have done to others over time.
Slavery was argued to be "beneficial" as it "helped" those "primitive cultures" to "fit in" with "civilized society" (both the ancient romans and the colonial powers used this argument).
Ruinous taxation was considered "the nobles taking what is due to them" and simply a fact of normal life for many a century (until the people had it with those nobles and finally managed a successful revolt - the swiss showed europe how its done, the rest... took a while longer...); and the ones trying to resist that sort of thing were considered the "evil" rebels and outlaws by the nobles (until they succeeded and got to write history from their point of view).
Forced re-education (aka, brainwashing and indoctrination) in several societies was seen as helpful, whereas we today would shudder at the thought.
Taking other proples goods by force was considered "heroic" and/or "just re-distribution of wealth" by many a viking raider, outlaw, bandit, barbarian invader, conquistador, holy crusader, and everyone else from the dawn of history to modern day looters.
Treating women as property was considered "normal" and also "done for their own good" not that far ago as history goes, and there are still a great many clichees that hail from the flimsy justifications used furing those times.
General property confiscation in many socialist/communist states (soviet russia, maoist china) was considered "right and just", taking "unearned wealth in the name of the people", no matter how hard some had worked to earn that, (and of course it often ended up with the party officials living the exact same way as the rich nobles and bankers had before - animal farm was spot on for this one)

What is the definition of "evil"?
Even when an action would be considered "hurtful" and "against innocents", it is often not considered "evil" if it serves some "greater good" - and that "greater good" excuse has often be used to justify all kinds of horribleness...
Surgery would hurt, but it is seldom seen as evil as it serves a "greater good", the correction of a health problem that threatens to cause more damage then the "hurt" of the surgery.
Criminal punishment in medieval times was full of hurt and such, but considered "good" because it was seen to serve the "greater good" of keeping societies laws.
Experimentation on living humans are morally questionable no matter when, double so if done without consent... but many an not-mad scientist has considered them acceptable when there was some "greater good" to be pursued, some knowledge to be gained.
Conquering other countries certainly hurt many innocents, but was not considered "evil" but "heroic" throughout most of history, because it served "king and country", and brought "our glorious civilization to their backwater lands" and stuff like that.

...

...yeah, humans can be quite a piece of work.

But the point I am making stands firm - "Evil" depends entirely on the moral point of view you see some action from.

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

I don't think the Telvanni would deny that slavery is evil...

Actually, they would. But then, they would deny that the whole concept of "evil" even exists... they would say that there is no good and evil, just actions and consequences, just those powerful enough to avoid the consequences, and those so weak as to have to avoid the actions.

And they probably also see enslaving others as beneficial for them (see above). After all, what more can an lowly argonian ask for then to have some purpose in their life, purpose that serves the glorious telvanni?

It has been said, the monster never sees a monster in the mirror. They always see someone who "does what is needed" for some "greater good" (even if that good may be their personal advancement, they will often rationalize it as benefitting their choosen society... even if they want to burn the whole world down they will rationalize it that the world is corrupt and a better world will rise from the ashes... even if they hurt innocents they will rationalize it that there are no innocents, and their suffering serves some cause or goal...)

Drat, I guess I got rather sidetracked lecturing about the relativity of evil, huh?

Petoften wrote: »

Some magic, like necromancy mentioned above, is 'evil'.

...yes, many people on tamriel consider it evil, and we have ample questings where we see that in practice. Both with the worm cult, and with several unrelated necromancic encounters.
But as said... it all depends on the point of view, and a great many who pay lip service in condemning necromancy will quietly support its use for their own cause if the need arises.