And what constitutes a "monster"?

[krossbow]

in a D&D world. i know how the books more or less define them for us (essentially anything that is a fictional being rather than an animal) but in an actual D&D world, where would the inhabitants draw the line between "animal" and "monster"?


would a peasant call a lion a monster, and if not, then why would he call a dire rat or another such being a monster, despite the lion's size and ferocity?


or would anyone in a D&D world actually CALL something a monster?

[StoryKeeper]

Depends on the world. If it's like mythological Greece, then chimeras are one of a kind or at least really rare and thus "monsters." Animals would be cratures that are common and have a natural place in the environement.

In settings where mythical beasts and baddies are all over the place, creatures are probably lumped together in the category of "beasts" rather than "animals" and "monsters."

[deuxhero]

I think a regular rat is a "monster" RAW.

[HunterOfJello]

anything trying to eat and/or hurt me

[Scoot]

I suppose it depends on how educated the peasant is.

Anything unnatural or frightening could be called a "Monster".

If he grew up with dire rats as pets I doubt he would consider them monsters, but if he spent a life sheltered from them and was told horrendous stories about them, that would be different.


I think it depends on perspective, we have our monsters because that's how we grew up thinking.

It's all setting and education.

Just my 2cp.

Edit: And what StoryKeeper said.

[krossbow]

i suppose education would factor into it now that you mention it.

in a highly advance setting, where magic was used akin to technology and used to facilitate industry and trade (I.E., mages are common, cities have colleges and a thriving magical trade, and the people are not reduced to squatting in huts), very few things would be outright labled monsters.

but in a setting where people live like it is the darkages, and the towns are scattered and linked only by the monarch demanding taxes, any random and frightening creature would be labled as unnatural. (i mean hell, we don't look at deep see creatures as being unatural, and those things are as freaky as anything found in a monster manual).

[Sinfire Titan]

But in the end, aren't we all monsters?


Especially those omnicidal kleptomaniacs who never stay put. :smallwink:

[ericgrau]

All races except humans have an entry in the monster manual. Go figure. Really everything's a monster. Humanoids are also "persons" if you go by the hold person spell, but goblinoids, orcs and so on also fall into this category.

[krossbow]

All races except humans have an entry in the monster manual. Go figure. Really everything's a monster. Humanoids are also "persons" if you go by the hold person spell, but goblinoids, orcs and so on also fall into this category.


what i mean is, by what definition would the people in the world (including the pc's) call something a monster?
(conversely, do you think that such a term would never be used in a D&D campaign world?)

[ericgrau]

IMO mainly the right humanoids (goblin and so on, but not elves and so on), dire animals, monstrous humanoids, some of the more unsightly giants (like trolls), etc. Being ugly, evil and familiar seems to play a big role. Even good-aligned goblins would still get a bad rap in the eyes of many. Demons and dragons and so on probably wouldn't fit even if ugly and evil as they have their own grandness and category. More the matter of stories than the familiar. Ditto for vampires and so on.

So... basically, what's a monster is determined in the mind of common folk. It's what they fear enough to hate, but not so much that they piss their pants and freeze in shear terror.

[The Shadowmind]

But in the end, aren't we all monsters?


Especially those omnicidal kleptomaniacs who never stay put. :smallwink:

We prefer calling ourselves the Party of adventures who adventure, and explain our reasoning through tautology by explaining our reasons through tautology.

[krossbow]

We prefer calling ourselves the Party of adventures who adventure, and explain our reasoning through tautology by explaining our reasons through tautology.


I take it those who have objected to this terminology has disappeared shortly thereafter?

[The Shadowmind]

I take it those who have objected to this terminology has disappeared shortly thereafter?
They disappeared, because they were no longer able to appear.
---
For the commoner a monster is any uncommon creature that they think is going to kill them. A goblin will be call a goblin if common enough, but can still be called a monster in the fear sense if the commoners have reason to fear it, if they do not then it could be called a monster in the insult version of the word if not; the insult version has no bearing on the fear sense of the word.

[Mewtarthio]

I wouldn't say "monster" is an insult in that sense of the word. It's a pretty grave accusation to level against someone. You don't just drop it against something you consider a common pest. It implies that the target is, indeed, dangerous and capable of horrible things. If goblins are common enough that humans don't fear them, but rather detest them, then they won't be called monsters. They'll be called something denigrating, like "scum" or "dog."

[Captain Six]

To throw more confusion onto it all a human yelling "you monster!" at a particularly despicable human is not unknown either.

[krossbow]

To clarify on this, the reason i got thinking about this subject is a line in final fantasy 8. During it, one of the characters asks another why they carry around a necklace of a monster on them; the character responds by stating that the "monster" is a lion, ect., ect.

It makes one think about how silly it would be for people who actually live with monsters to think of them as such; only things that aren't naturally occuring, such as a one time magical experiment would seem to be worthy of term monster; even something as strange as an owlbear or gelatinous ooze, once it reached the point of naturally breeding and existing in eco-systems, would become "normal" and cease to be a monster.

[Zergrusheddie]

This can be tackled in two ways.

From a Sociological point:
Anything other than your race and the races that you like or have associated with are monsters. Humans think that Elves and Dwarves are people but Orcs, Kobolds, and Dragons are monsters.

From a Gaming point:
Anything that is against the players. Gold Dragons are not monsters but that evil Black Dragon is. Essentially, if it gives experience and killing it will not get the party killed by the Lawful Good Paladins, it is a monster.

This actually reminds me of something interesting that came up. I was thinking about playing an Orc Barbarian but one of the players said something like "Yeah, sure. The guards kill you. Make a new character." This bothered me because that is, quite literally, racist actions being taken by a Lawful Good society. Orcs are usually considered monsters but there are just as many Human thieves/bandits/murderers/barbarians as there are evil orcs. I think it would be funny to have a game where everyone played an Aberration and had to fight the strange looking Humanoids.

[JaronK]

First off, by RAW the words "Monster" and "Creature" and "Race" are synonymous, except for implication. Generally, a "Creature" is anything that's capable of independant decision or following orders. A "Monster" is a "Creature" with the implication that it's not a PC, while a "Race" is a "Creature" with the implication that it's a PC. For example, elves are a "Race" in the PHB, which is designed primarily for players, but they're a "Monster" in the Monster Manual, which is designed primarily for making NPCs. Likewise, Kobolds were a "Monster" in the MM until Races of the Dragon came out, where they're a "Race."

However, for rules purposes, the words are interchangable. "Dominate Monster" works on all creatures. A racial bonus feat is the same as a creature bonus feat... it's just called a racial bonus feat when we're talking in terms of PCs.

Meanwhile for some reason a "person" means a humanoid, as all spells like "Charm Person" or "Hold Person" only work on humanoids. Goliaths and Tieflings and Assamars are evidently not people.

Anyway, that being the case, I'd guess in D&D people would have a similar "us vs them" concept of Monster. Monsters are other. Monsters are different from you. Monsters are anything you don't see commonly, or anything particularly scary. Monsters are what go bump in the night.

JaronK

[JaronK]

This actually reminds me of something interesting that came up. I was thinking about playing an Orc Barbarian but one of the players said something like "Yeah, sure. The guards kill you. Make a new character." This bothered me because that is, quite literally, racist actions being taken by a Lawful Good society. Orcs are usually considered monsters but there are just as many Human thieves/bandits/murderers/barbarians as there are evil orcs. I think it would be funny to have a game where everyone played an Aberration and had to fight the strange looking Humanoids.

Lawful Good in D&D seems to mean racist ****. How does a paladin know if it's an evil elf? It's got dark skin. Good elf? Light skin. Dragons? If they're shiny they're good, if not they're evil. Find a warren full of Kobolds? Kill the bastards and take their stuff (seriously, leave the little guys alone!). At least evil is honest. I actually made a Dread Necromancer character that liked to masquarade as a Paladin (thanks, Mithral Breastplate and proficiency in one martial weapon!) and then occasionally try to convince people that good was actually evil. And yeah, he used the Burning Hate argument too. Always fun trying to screw with real paladins' faith.

JaronK

[Lord Vukodlak]

I wouldn't say "monster" is an insult in that sense of the word. It's a pretty grave accusation to level against someone. You don't just drop it against something you consider a common pest. It implies that the target is, indeed, dangerous and capable of horrible things. If goblins are common enough that humans don't fear them, but rather detest them, then they won't be called monsters. They'll be called something denigrating, like "scum" or "dog."

Agreed, that is the best way to ago about it.


Lawful Good in D&D seems to mean racist ****.

Only when people treat it as such. Really I find most the problems with alignments are created by the players imagination, and not by the system.
If your paladin is killing someone based on race and not them actually doing evil. Then he isn't lawful good and has fallen.

If you view lawful good as a murderous zealot your going to have a bad experience. If you view it as "What would super man do?" your going to have a very different experience. The "What would Superman Do" is probably the better way to handle lawful good.

Back in 3.0
I had a lawful good high elven monk(who if the exalted deeds book had existed would have qualified as exalted). He married a Drow woman, she wasn't evil so he could eventually see past the fact she was a dark elf.
His code of justice didn't let him behave in a racist fashion,(despite centuries of hatred between surface elves and drow).
He also once helped lift the curse on a chaotic good Red Dragon. (cursed by Tiamat for being good)

I think we could agree that racism can be considered an evil act, maybe not enough on its own to shift your alignment that way, but still evil.
A paladin fights evil orcs because the orcs are evil, not because they are orc. If the orcs are not evil then the paladin would be reluctant to fight them.

With alignments its important to remember to two things,
#1 they are guidelines you need not perfectly conform
#2 Your alignment should ideally represent your actions, not the other way around.

[TheCountAlucard]

The "What would Superman Do" is probably the better way to handle lawful good.I dunno, Superman is kind of a jerk... :smalltongue:

I'm gonna agree with the "Monster = unfamiliarity" bit. What is the Loch Ness Monster (aside from a hoax)? We don't know, and thus it's a "monster." Spring-heeled Jack? We don't know, and thus it's a "monster." The Jersey Devil, Bigfoot, and any number of other "monsters?" Yeah...

Once we know what it is, it stops being a bogeyman.

[PhoenixRivers]

Anything in the Monster Manuals.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I dunno, Superman is kind of a jerk... :smalltongue:

Most DC super heroes are.
I didn't say it was the best way just better then JaronK's idea of LG.

[Drascin]

Lawful Good in D&D seems to mean racist ****. How does a paladin know if it's an evil elf? It's got dark skin. Good elf? Light skin. Dragons? If they're shiny they're good, if not they're evil. Find a warren full of Kobolds? Kill the bastards and take their stuff (seriously, leave the little guys alone!). At least evil is honest. I actually made a Dread Necromancer character that liked to masquarade as a Paladin (thanks, Mithral Breastplate and proficiency in one martial weapon!) and then occasionally try to convince people that good was actually evil. And yeah, he used the Burning Hate argument too. Always fun trying to screw with real paladins' faith.


Actually, that is so far removed from Lawful Good so as to actually be Lawful Evil. The Paladin is supposed to be the one trying to convince the party to not annihilate the kobold warrens, simply taking out the warcamps at most - not the one charging first. Dragons are a bit more muddied, because in most settings they're generally created as intrinsically evil by Tiamat's design and it takes them a lot of work to overcome that, but you're STILL supposed to gather some intelligence on just what the dragon has done before passing judgement on whether it's Evil or not.

People keep forgetting that Paladins are Lawful GOOD, emphasis on the "good" - by RAW, you need several unlawful acts to fall because you don't fall by unlawfulness until you actually change alignment to Neutral Good, but one single willful evil act and you're down in Fallsville.

Hell, the very design reason behind the Paladin having detect evil was to at least curb a bit of that. No matter the skin color or whatever, the Paladin is supposed and obligated to scan before smiting, and any Paladin who smites indiscriminately gets a giant "dude, not cool" slap from his god. Yes, it's not too well implemented, but it's still a clue as to the intent of the thing.

I mean, really. What's up with people playing Paladins like pricks?

[Oslecamo]

Hell, the very design reason behind the Paladin having detect evil was to at least curb a bit of that. No matter the skin color or whatever, the Paladin is supposed and obligated to scan before smiting, and any Paladin who smites indiscriminately gets a giant "dude, not cool" slap from his god. Yes, it's not too well implemented, but it's still a clue as to the intent of the thing.


This. If detect evil points evil, then it means the freaking universe itself has judged and declared that person guilty, and now you're the executor.

Monsters aren't evil because they have a tag on their heads. They're evil because they've done evil acts. If a kobold hasn't been raiding inoccents and eating babies for breakfast, he won't point as evil, and the paladin should let him go with his life.

[Touchy]

This. If detect evil points evil, then it means the freaking universe itself has judged and declared that person guilty, and now you're the executor.

Monsters aren't evil because they have a tag on their heads. They're evil because they've done evil acts. If a kobold hasn't been raiding inoccents and eating babies for breakfast, he won't point as evil, and the paladin should let him go with his life.
Although he shouldn't be blind about it, should check them all, don't know if a lawful neutral kobold comes and BAM, you fell from grace.

And that's my problem with paladins.

[taltamir]

the "monster manual" explicitly includes non monster creatures. examples are elves and humans.

I don't think you can generalize what "people" will think because different people will have different opinions.. some will say "everyone but my race is a monster", others will say "everyone but those few races are monsters", others still will say "everything except sentient creatures who are not always evil are monsters", others yet will say "Everything except sentient creatures are monsters"...

well, of course you can get into type... different people might disagree on whether dragons are monsters for example.


This. If detect evil points evil, then it means the freaking universe itself has judged and declared that person guilty, and now you're the executor.

Monsters aren't evil because they have a tag on their heads. They're evil because they've done evil acts. If a kobold hasn't been raiding inoccents and eating babies for breakfast, he won't point as evil, and the paladin should let him go with his life.

he could ALSO be under the effect of an evil spell, an alignment modifying spell, in contact with an evil magic item, etc... Which makes the spell right bloody useless.

[Oslecamo]

he could ALSO be under the effect of an evil spell, an alignment modifying spell, in contact with an evil magic item, etc... Which makes the spell right bloody useless.

An alignment modifying spell means that his mind is twisted to fit that alignment. Too bad for him, but his mind has been corrupted and he must be stoped. An evil spell means you are dealing with evildoers. Or are on the path for evil yourself (casting evil spells is an evil act and will doom you to hell as per FC, and no, casting good spells isn't a good act and won't nullify casting evil spells).

Plus, smite evil. If the creature isn't evil itself, it won't hurt them.:smallbiggrin:

[taltamir]

1. a level 1 commoner who gets hit by your smite evil is dead even if the smite did not take effect.
2. an evil spells cast on him against his will triggers that too.
3. What if he is a good person carrying an evil item to be destroyed? (or unaware of the items nature)

[Optimystik]

anything trying to eat and/or hurt me

Seems pretty straightforward to me.


We prefer calling ourselves the Party of adventures who adventure, and explain our reasoning through tautology by explaining our reasons through tautology.

We're on a quest for treasure so that we can afford to pay for our quests for treasure!

[Volkov]

A Hundred headed Paragon, Half-fiend, Pseudonatural tarrasque of legend would be a monster. (Not to mention bloody overpowered.....god damned blasphemy)

A Mind flayer would be a monster.

An Gold dragon, would not be called a monster due to it's niceness.

[TheCountAlucard]

the "monster manual" explicitly includes non monster creatures. examples are elves and humans.Humans are very specifically not in the Monster Manual.


EDIT: Wait, I should know this...

"What is a monster? A miserable pile of secrets!"

...No, that's not it.

[Optimystik]

Okay, I'll try for a semi-serious answer.

Savage Species defines a "monster" as "any creature whose race is not one of the 7 races in the Player's Handbook."

That's right - Warforged are all monsters :smalltongue:

[Volkov]

Okay, I'll try for a semi-serious answer.

Savage Species defines a "monster" as "any creature whose race is not one of the 7 races in the Player's Handbook."

That's right - Warforged are all monsters :smalltongue:

So a reunited Pandorym would be a monster and not an hideously powerful eldritch abomination who could easily give a fully powered Tharidizun a run for his money or possibly even beat him?

[taltamir]

Okay, I'll try for a semi-serious answer.

Savage Species defines a "monster" as "any creature whose race is not one of the 7 races in the Player's Handbook."

That's right - Warforged are all monsters :smalltongue:

so... if any 2 of the 7 races (with neither being a human) have a baby, that baby is then a monster? (aka, half-dwarf-half-elf, etc)


Humans are very specifically not in the Monster Manual.

odd, I was sure there are "town guards" and the like...

[Volkov]

so... if any 2 of the 7 races (with neither being a human) have a baby, that baby is then a monster? (aka, half-dwarf-half-elf, etc)



odd, I was sure there are "town guards" and the like...

According to greyhawk, when a dwarf mates with a human, elf, gnome, or other PHB races, the offspring is always a purebred dwarf.

[TheCountAlucard]

So a reunited Pandorym would be a monster and not an hideously powerful eldritch abomination who could easily give a fully powered Tharidizun a run for his money or possibly even beat him?The two terms are not mutually exclusive.


odd, I was sure there are "town guards" and the like...Not human ones.

[taltamir]

According to greyhawk, when a dwarf mates with a human, elf, gnome, or other PHB races, the offspring is always a purebred dwarf.

what about an elf and a halfling?

[Thrawn183]

Aberrations.... maybe dragons, possibly magical beasts. That's about all I would expect.

[Neon Knight]

EDIT: Wait, I should know this...

"What is a monster? A miserable pile of secrets!"

...No, that's not it.

Darn it, you beat me to it.

[TheCountAlucard]

Darn it, you beat me to it.Sorry, I had to. :smalltongue:

[deathpigeon]

I'm actually planning on making a campaign setting in which there is a war caused by a god between "civilized" races, and "monstrous" races where both sides are being horribly racist and evil.

[Volkov]

I'm actually planning on making a campaign setting in which there is a war caused by a god between "civilized" races, and "monstrous" races where both sides are being horribly racist and evil.

So it's warhammer 40k but not in space? (Oddly, this would be somewhat closer to warhammer 40k than warhammer fantasy, now that the two have drifted pretty far apart.)

[deathpigeon]

So it's warhammer 40k but not in space? (Oddly, this would be somewhat closer to warhammer 40k than warhammer fantasy, now that the two have drifted pretty far apart.)

Never played warhammer 40k before, so I don't know.

[Volkov]

Never played warhammer 40k before, so I don't know.

You don't need to, reading the fluff online is enough to get a very good amount of info about it. Plus Warhammer 40k is hideously expensive ($3 for an unpainted plastic miniature my @$$.)

[taltamir]

Never played warhammer 40k before, so I don't know.

warhammer 40k is a tabletop squad & miniatures based game. it and chainmail (a similar game) are the predecessors to DnD, which was supposed to be "the same only with more roleplaying".

in warhammer 40k you have eldar (space elves), orks (space orcs), and human fighting eternally. all are horrendously bigoted and warmongering and seek nothing but the destruction of all other races, because they are unclean. its freaking awesome!

[Volkov]

warhammer 40k is a tabletop squad & miniatures based game. it and chainmail (a similar game) are the predecessors to DnD, which was supposed to be "the same only with more roleplaying".

in warhammer 40k you have eldar (space elves), orks (space orcs), and human fighting eternally. all are horrendously bigoted and warmongering and seek nothing but the destruction of all other races, because they are unclean. its freaking awesome!

You forgot the Necrons, Tyranids, Chaos, Tau, Squats, Kroots, Demiurge, Vespids, and what-not.

[deathpigeon]

warhammer 40k is a tabletop squad & miniatures based game. it and chainmail (a similar game) are the predecessors to DnD, which was supposed to be "the same only with more roleplaying".

in warhammer 40k you have eldar (space elves), orks (space orcs), and human fighting eternally. all are horrendously bigoted and warmongering and seek nothing but the destruction of all other races, because they are unclean. its freaking awesome!

Cool, in the setting I'm planning on making, a human empire, based off of the British Empire, a elven empire, based off of Napoleon's empire, and a dwarven empire, based off of Nazi Germany, will fight Gnolls, based off of the mongols, Orcs, based off of the germanic tribes, and a Goblonoid empire based off of the Muslim Empire. In addition, there will be a neutral Dragonborn Empire based on the Roman Empire, a Drow Empire which withdrew from the fight because of a civil war, and a Eladrin Empire which focuses mainly on destroying the Drow.

[Volkov]

Cool, in the setting I'm planning on making, a human empire, based off of the British Empire, a elven empire, based off of Napoleon's empire, and a dwarven empire, based off of Nazi Germany, will fight Gnolls, based off of the mongols, Orcs, based off of the germanic tribes, and a Goblonoid empire based off of the Muslim Empire. In addition, there will be a neutral Dragonborn Empire based on the Roman Empire, a Drow Empire which withdrew from the fight because of a civil war, and a Eladrin Empire which focuses mainly on destroying the Drow.

Oh so it's 4e...I just lost all interest. :smallbiggrin:

[Devils_Advocate]

Common isn't necessarily English, or whatever language that a particular gaming group speaks. If there's reason to think that a particular concept, like "imaginary creature", wouldn't be common enough to have its own word in a setting, then we can tentatively guess that it probably doesn't. And obviously, if people in the setting use words that best translate to "monster" or "magic" to describe things in their world, then those words aren't going to have the connotation that they refer to something imaginary.

A pedantic wizard might inform you that all creatures are monsters and everything is magical, but the words probably aren't going to be used those ways most of the time. This sort of "official terminology" will likely go against common usage and rightly be ignored by non-technical people, who realize that you can't trust wizards to make sense about this stuff. After all, when they discovered that not only are not all extraplanar creatures "outsiders" as they had defined the term, but not all "outsiders" per their definition are even extraplanar, did they abandon that word as a ridiculous misnomer for this type of creature? Hells no, they didn't; they just started calling some creatures "native outsiders" even though that plainly makes no sense.

So, why might an average man on the street in a D&D setting call something or someone a "monster", if not because he thinks it's imaginary? Well, probably for all of the other reasons that someone might use that word in real life: it's scary, it's vicious, it's evil, it's just really frickin' big, or whatever.

[bosssmiley]

Classic D&D answer: "anything that is not a PC." IANMTU, it's right there in the DMG and the (One True) Red Box.


in a D&D world. i know how the books more or less define them for us (essentially anything that is a fictional being rather than an animal) but in an actual D&D world, where would the inhabitants draw the line between "animal" and "monster"?

Anything that can eat you, or which scares you, is a monster. That's the root of all monster mythology. Either it eats people, or it just freaks them out.

Cows ain't monsters. Man-eaters are.

RL example: the Lions of Tsavo. They were just lions, but look at the folklore that grew up around the fact they were maneaters. Suddenly the locals are calling the The Ghost and the Darkness and ascribing all sorts of supernatural powers (they can turn to smoke; they can't be harmed by spears or bullets; they can't be trapped) and uncanny motivations (they're transformed voodoo priest; they're spirits of the vengeful dead in lion form; they're the anger of the earth gods at the intrusion of the iron road) to them.

Another RL example (albeit from mythology): the hydra. This was probably the creation of some Greek guy got a look at a nest of snakes, got really freaked out by it, then decided to make a huge version of it the monster of the week in his Hercules fanfic.


Cool, in the setting I'm planning on making, a human empire, based off of the British Empire, a elven empire, based off of Napoleon's empire <trim>

See also Flintloque. Literally, the Napoleonic Wars with fantasy races.

[JaronK]

Okay, I'll try for a semi-serious answer.

Savage Species defines a "monster" as "any creature whose race is not one of the 7 races in the Player's Handbook."

That's right - Warforged are all monsters :smalltongue:

Annoyingly enough, Elves are listed as a monster in the MM. So are gnomes and pretty much everything other than humans, IIRC. Plus, Dominate Monster works on humans. So yeah, I'm sticking with my answer of "monster by RAW is just a creature that's being talked about like it's an NPC, but it could be a PC too" and "monster in game is anything scary and uncommon in your area." A gold dragon is a monster until you get to know him and decide he won't eat you, unless you're familiar with gold dragons already.

JaronK

[krossbow]

According to greyhawk, when a dwarf mates with a human, elf, gnome, or other PHB races, the offspring is always a purebred dwarf.

Never underestimate the virality of dwarven sperm!

[TheCountAlucard]

Never underestimate the virality of dwarven sperm!Even Especially if the dwarf in question is a woman!

[ericgrau]

For the commoner a monster is any uncommon creature that they think is going to kill them. A goblin will be call a goblin if common enough, but can still be called a monster in the fear sense if the commoners have reason to fear it, if they do not then it could be called a monster in the insult version of the word if not; the insult version has no bearing on the fear sense of the word.

This is it in a nutshell. Using the word "monster" is really a form of prejudice. Justified at least part or most of the time, most likely, but still prejudice nonetheless.

[ZeroNumerous]

1. a level 1 commoner who gets hit by your smite evil is dead even if the smite did not take effect.
2. an evil spells cast on him against his will triggers that too.
3. What if he is a good person carrying an evil item to be destroyed? (or unaware of the items nature)

Smite Evil with a sap. If he's evil, it kills him. If he's good, it merely knocks him out.

[krossbow]

Smite Evil with a sap. If he's evil, it kills him. If he's good, it merely knocks him out.

reminds me of a magic set of Brass knuckles i saw in a compendium; They're enchanted with a cure light wounds spell. Essentially, the clerics would go around pummeling villagers to root out vampires, under the assumption that the living ones would survive the beating due to the healing, while the vampires would stand no chance against the added damage of the cure spells.