PDA

View Full Version : Paladins and Detect evil - Hypothetical situation 3.5



Grifthin
2010-07-13, 05:15 AM
Here's a odd question, lets say that there is a man. He lives a life of virtue, doing all that is good and lawful. He is a paragon of humanity untill one day he comes home to find that his wife has been cheating on him. In a fit of rage/despair he kills the man his wife dallianced with. Afterwards he is overcome with remorse at his actions. A paladin rocks up at the trial - does the man detect as evil ?

Snake-Aes
2010-07-13, 05:18 AM
Not really, no. Evil people act evilly with consistency. It's normal for people to contradict their own alignments rarely.

In fact, alignment wouldn't really matter at the trial. He'll be punished accordingly for the deed, not for the letters on his alignment stat.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-13, 05:24 AM
I agree with Snake-Aes. A single evil act rarely results in an alignment shift.
He would still fall, such an act, though understandable, is still an evil act.
And whether you are good or evil shouldn't matter at a trial.
Only guilt does.

Coidzor
2010-07-13, 05:32 AM
Alignment is hazy combination of ethos, behavior patterns, intention and desires, the ethical calculus of one's actions(see utilitarianism and alignment determined by acts with no points being added or subtracted from the two axes due to one's thoughts or beliefs), and probably something else.

Depends on the group what they favor and what they don't, and how they lean. Very rarely, you'll even find ones which disregard the only actions influence alignment clause.

Me, I'd say, nah, not yet.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-13, 05:47 AM
I agree with Snake-Aes. A single evil act rarely results in an alignment shift.
He would still fall, such an act, though understandable, is still an evil act.
And whether you are good or evil shouldn't matter at a trial.
Only guilt does.

The paladin the OP mentioned is not the guy :p it's just an evil radar.

Coidzor
2010-07-13, 05:47 AM
The paladin the OP mentioned is not the guy :p it's just an evil radar.

Well, radar can kill, so I can see a radar turning evil from killing people on purpose or enough accidentally out of negligence.

Fayd
2010-07-13, 07:33 AM
I think the point of the alignment thing isn't so much to see if he is guilty or not (he is) but to determine the most appropriate punishment. I mean really, you would want to keep an [Evil] man locked up much longer than someone who isn't.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-13, 07:34 AM
I think the point of the alignment thing isn't so much to see if he is guilty or not (he is) but to determine the most appropriate punishment. I mean really, you would want to keep an [Evil] man locked up much longer than someone who isn't.

Just because he's evil? that's evil in itself.

KillianHawkeye
2010-07-13, 07:38 AM
I think the point of the alignment thing isn't so much to see if he is guilty or not (he is) but to determine the most appropriate punishment. I mean really, you would want to keep an [Evil] man locked up much longer than someone who isn't.Just because he's evil? that's evil in itself.

Yeah, that's alignmentism.

As to the OP, a single evil act won't usually change one's alignment unless it is something pretty massive (Ex: Anakin killing the younglings, and even then it wasn't his first evil act).

EDIT: This reminds me of when I was running Red Hand of Doom and I threw in a little twist in chapter 1 where I had the halfling wizard in the first town randomly murdered. The party later got in a bit of a conflict with Iormel, the crotchety old guy, and the party cleric decided to cast detect evil. Upon discovering that Iormel was, in fact, Evil, they accused him of killing the wizard, to which my defense was "just because I'm Evil, that doesn't mean I'm guilty!"

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 07:41 AM
I agree with Snake-Aes. A single evil act rarely results in an alignment shift.

Rarely- but there are exceptions. Killing a lot of people all at once (at least in older editions) was something for which the PHB said "the DM is justified in instituting an instant change to Evil"

A single evil act in a lifetime of not doing evil- might not send a Lawful character to Baator- in FC2, a murder is not a "automatically damning act"- and this one probably wouldn't qualify as "cold-blooded murder" so would be less evil.

This character would probably not go to Baator despite his Evil act- and might possibly still be Lawful Good.

EDIT:


Upon discovering that Iormel was, in fact, Evil, they accused him of killing the wizard, to which my defense was "just because I'm Evil, that doesn't mean I'm guilty!"

This is actually brought up by the paladin Alhandra in one of the 3.0 D&D novels- when the townsfolk want her to Detect Evil on an accused half-orc (Krusk) so they can lynch him. She points out that there is no point using Detect Evil- for this very reason.

Heroes of Horror also brings up the fact that plenty of Evil characters (especially LE ones) will be perfectly law-abiding- and using Detect Evil as a licence to kill, will end up getting the heroes jailed for murder.

Mad Mask
2010-07-13, 07:55 AM
Just because he's evil? that's evil in itself.

Actually, no. Evil isn't a hat, or a skin colour, or a funny quirk. Evil indicates a pattern of thought, and willingness to act on these thoughts. To quote the SRD: "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." If you're Evil, you've got to have done or thought of doing these things on a regular basis, and that means you're a danger to society. Therefore, giving larger sentences to Evil people is actually a good thing, as you're protecting the common good and preventing them from harming others.

In D&D, alignment isn't meaningless.

To return to the original question, I do not believe the act would cause the man to register as evil, as it was a spontaneous decision, not a change in his long-term Lawful Good pattern of thought. Imagine the reverse: a chaotic evil man who spent all of his life destroying and pillaging the countryside, suddenly decides to save a random stranger's life (a Good act). Unless it's the start of a change in his mentality, it should be obvious that he would not turn Good for a single action.

KillianHawkeye
2010-07-13, 08:00 AM
This is actually brought up by the paladin Alhandra in one of the 3.0 D&D novels- when the townsfolk want her to Detect Evil on an accused half-orc (Krusk) so they can lynch him. She points out that there is no point using Detect Evil- for this very reason.

As I recall, she'd already done the Detect Evil but went ahead with her little speech to teach the villagers a lesson in benevolence. :smallamused:

SilverLeaf167
2010-07-13, 08:02 AM
We'll see what happens in my soon-to-start campaign. These three things don't go well together:

The PCs have practically no access to alignment detection
I like creating characters who seem Evil but are actually Good
One of the PCs is a maniac with a greatsword


I'll really have to prepare for some plot improvisation after they kill some important NPC.

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 08:02 AM
To quote the SRD: "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." If you're Evil, you've got to have done or thought of doing these things on a regular basis, and that means you're a danger to society.

Though, for some societies, an element of "hurting and oppressing others" is par for the course.

Even in a Good society, if the local executioner, who carries out the various punishments, takes enough pleasure in them, they could be Evil without ever becoming a danger to society.


As I recall, she'd already done the Detect Evil but went ahead with her little speech to teach the villagers a lesson in benevolence. :smallamused:

Ah- It was someone else who told me that one- and I passed it on. Any more detailed versions of it?

Kish
2010-07-13, 08:22 AM
Actually, no. Evil isn't a hat, or a skin colour, or a funny quirk. Evil indicates a pattern of thought, and willingness to act on these thoughts. To quote the SRD: "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." If you're Evil, you've got to have done or thought of doing these things on a regular basis, and that means you're a danger to society. Therefore, giving larger sentences to Evil people is actually a good thing, as you're protecting the common good and preventing them from harming others.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that "glowing red when a paladin casts Detect Evil" being treated as a crime, and/or adding to the sentence for another crime, wouldn't itself cause the alignments of everyone involved in the court system to move southward, and that no Xykonish sorcerer would decide it was funny to mess with such magical detection methods by creating false positives for evil.

How long do you suppose it would be before, in the absence of a convenient paladin (or someone conveniently able to claim fairly convincingly to be a paladin who happens to dislike the accused!) or in the presence of it being easier to attack than to ask questions, "Being evil is a crime" would mutate into, "Being a race with evil alignment tendencies is a crime, being an Always Evil race like a chromatic dragon is a capital offense because we court-running NPCs have all read their alignment entry in the Monster Manualnone of us have ever heard of one who wasn't evil and that proves there are none who aren't evil"?

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 08:32 AM
How long do you suppose it would be before, in the absence of a convenient paladin (or someone conveniently able to claim fairly convincingly to be a paladin who happens to dislike the accused!) or in the presence of it being easier to attack than to ask questions, "Being evil is a crime" would mutate into, "Being a race with evil alignment tendencies is a crime, being an Always Evil race like a chromatic dragon is a capital offense because we court-running NPCs have all read their alignment entry in the Monster Manualnone of us have ever heard of one who wasn't evil and that proves there are none who aren't evil"?

Isn't that the way it is already? At least, in campaigns not heavily influenced by BoED?

Savage Species lists four typical campaign models, and Chaotic/Rejecting, where members of "monstrous races" tend to be attacked on sight, and the few who aren't are expected to prove their goodness constantly, is described as "the most typical of a D&D setting".

KillianHawkeye
2010-07-13, 08:57 AM
Ah- It was someone else who told me that one- and I passed it on. Any more detailed versions of it?

Paraphrased and spoilered for length:
Basically, Regdar and his party of non-iconic followers are hired to help a village get rid of some bandits, who happen to be orcs. They set up an ambush and follow the survivors back to their lair and pretty much wipe them out. Unfortunately, the bandit leader is an ogre and almost has Regdar and company in the ground when Alhandra shows up and defeats him.

When they get back to the village, they see the villagers about to hang Krusk (who was in the area for completely different reasons) who they think is a raider because he's a half-orc. The heroes are pretty sure they got all the raiders, so they decide to stop the hanging. Alhandra takes the lead, marching into the crowd and trying to talk down the lead hangman with a little help from Regdar. The crowd is skeptical, so the party mage remembers that Paladins can sense the evil in a person and suggests that Alhandra can do this to see if Krusk is evil.

Alhandra's response is that she can indeed say whether or not Krusk's soul is stained with evil. In fact, she can sit in judgement of anyone brought before her. But she appeals to the villagers' good natures, saying that they never needed anyone to tell them the right way to govern their village, obeying the laws of the land without harming others.

Then Krusk is brought down and locked in the inn's cellar. The mage warns Alhandra that Krusk could still be evil even if he's not one of the bandits, but Alhandra says he's not. The mage exclaims "I thought you said you wouldn't use your ability to check him?"

Alhandra replies "I didn't say I wouldn't examine him, only that the villagers should treat him fairly. I looked into his aura the moment I saw him."

The mage asks Alhandra one more question before leaving. "If he had been evil, what would you have done?"

"The same thing."

EDIT: The book in question is City of Fire by T. H. Lain. The encounter with Krusk and the villagers comprises the entirety of Chapter 4. I only read about half the series, but this was one of the better ones.

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 09:01 AM
It was probably that last bit "The same thing" that stuck in my mind- whether or not someone's evil, it's the paladin's job to ensure they are judged fairly.

Ironically, this version of Alhandra sounds much nicer than the version implied in the PHB description of LG- who "smites evil without mercy" (as well as protecting the innocent without hesitation).

KillianHawkeye
2010-07-13, 09:06 AM
Ironically, this version of Alhandra sounds much nicer than the version implied in the PHB description of LG- who "smites evil without mercy" (as well as protecting the innocent without hesitation).

Yeah, she describes her job as a paladin of Hieroneous as a person who upholds the law and stands for justice. Smiting is reserved for combat situations, not wrongful executions.

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 09:14 AM
Makes more sense in the context of 3.0 to 3.5 though.

At least according to some posters, Evil characters that pinged a Detect Evil spell, in 1st and and 2nd ed were, by definition, either guilty of death-penalty worthy crimes many times over, or so malevolent as to be a clear danger to anyone nearby.

3rd ed made Detect Evil much more powerful- thus making Detect&Smite behaviour much more iffy.

AvatarZero
2010-07-13, 12:52 PM
Should you really be accomodating to objectively evil characters? I mean, if all intelligent life is worth protecting then any character who has a +2 weapon instead of a +1 merciful weapon or who doesn't have the Nonlethal Substitution metamagic feat is a frivolous immoral killer.

Beating people without killing them is very easy in DnD, but every time I've been a player in a game of DnD and suggested non-lethal tactics as the standard, I've gotten funny looks.

I guess I like DnD where Evil is irredeemable and there are neutral murderers. Evil characters want to kill you and will never stop wanting to kill you; they'll do it at first convenient opportunity. A neutral criminal should be locked up and rehabilitated, even redeemed. An evil one should be killed. Not the way real life works, but real life doesn't have an objectively correct moral code that can be confirmed by asking one of the city's many miracle workers to call God. You've got no excuse for being wrong in DnD-land. (Is this where the Tippyverse comes in? I've heard the term but never seen it explained.)

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 12:57 PM
Maybe- but the default assumption in many splatbooks and campaign books, is that "Evil" can mean the spiteful aristocratic gossip, or the bullying tavern brawler- Faerun in particular does this. It doesn't have to be irredeemable.

BoVD, BoED, Champions of Valor, Champions of Ruin, Fiendish Codex 2, Exemplars of Evil- all seem to follow this trend.

That doesn't mean using lethal force in defense of yourself and others is evil- but there is a strong principle that surrenders should be accepted if asked for, and that redemption should at least be offered to Evil characters if possible. They may turn it down- but the Good character should at least try.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-07-13, 01:12 PM
Alignments were intended as guidelines, however most players treat them as strait jackets.

What this means is your alignment should be a rough guideline of your behavior. So no the guy wouldn't show up as evil, its one event in his life. It should take a truly epic act to change alignment instantly.

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 01:31 PM
Or a big change of outlook- the DMG suggests that an evil character might "cast aside their evil ways" and become Neutral, leaning toward Good. Even if they haven't really been doing Good things at all- they've learned from the good guys, and finally been convinced to change their ways.

And all without them knowing he was originally evil in the first place.

A single big act might have to be mass murder rather than murder (as per 2nd ed PHB example) to cause instant shift all the way from Good to Evil.

NowhereMan583
2010-07-13, 01:43 PM
Here's a odd question, lets say that there is a man. He lives a life of virtue, doing all that is good and lawful. He is a paragon of humanity untill one day he comes home to find that his wife has been cheating on him. In a fit of rage/despair he kills the man his wife dallianced with. Afterwards he is overcome with remorse at his actions. A paladin rocks up at the trial - does the man detect as evil ?

[emphasis mine]

I believe that this is the key. If the man did not feel remorseful - if he realized he enjoyed the act, or it gave him some sort of power trip - then he's probably not good any more. However, even then, I expect his alignment would only shift to TN.

Since he feels remorse, his crime of passion has no alignment penalty, and he remains good, even lawful.

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 01:55 PM
How far can remorse take you- when it's cold-blooded killing rather than crimes of passion?

The Operative from Serenity appears to feel some remorse for his actions "What I do is evil, I have no illusions about that"- but still considers them a "necessary evil".

In this case though, I'd say there wouldn't be an alignment shift, unless the character continued to have outbreaks of violence and then feel remorseful- but not remorseful enough to turn themselves in.

Remorse can be a mitigating factor- but will it prevent alignment change indefinitely?

NowhereMan583
2010-07-13, 02:20 PM
Remorse can be a mitigating factor- but will it prevent alignment change indefinitely?

Well, if he continues killing, then he'll have alignment issues. I was working on the assumption that this was the only time he's killed someone so far. There's definitely a limit to how far remorse can take you.

Sidenote: Personally, I would place the Operative as LN. He's aware that the orders he receives and follows are evil, but truly believes in the greater good. I'd say he himself is more misguided than evil. He's actually the reverse of the "evil but not guilty" situation discussed above; he's guilty of atrocities, and any fair court would condemn him, but he's not an evil man at heart.

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 02:25 PM
Main reason I'm a bit leery of calling him LN, is just how bad his atrocities are:

Mal: "I don't kill children."
Operative: "I do. If I have to."

and the fact that "for the Greater Good" NPCs in D&D splatbooks, like Michael Ambrose in Tome of Magic, or the Eldreth Veluthraa in Lords of Darkness, tend to be Evil rather than Neutral.

If you go by Champions of Ruin, "for the greater good" or rather "the ends justify the means" is a common path to evil alignment- and often the character will not realize and still see themselves as good.

The Operative, and Ozymandias in Watchmen, I see as typifying this.

(in FC2, one kind of devil- the Narguzon- hellish cavalry- is made from the souls of those who follow evil orders.)

Kish
2010-07-13, 09:12 PM
I guess I like DnD where Evil is irredeemable and there are neutral murderers. Evil characters want to kill you and will never stop wanting to kill you; they'll do it at first convenient opportunity. A neutral criminal should be locked up and rehabilitated, even redeemed. An evil one should be killed.
Again, if "glowing red when a paladin casts Detect Evil" is a crime, or adds further punishments to other crimes, how long do you suppose it would be before, in the absence of a convenient paladin (or someone conveniently able to claim fairly convincingly to be a paladin who happens to dislike the accused!) or in the presence of it being easier to attack than to ask questions, "Being evil is a crime" would mutate into, "Being a race with evil alignment tendencies is a crime, being an Always Evil race like a chromatic dragon is a capital offense because we court-running NPCs have all read their alignment entry in the Monster Manual and not the part where it defines the game term Alwaysnone of us have ever heard of one who wasn't evil and that proves there are none who aren't evil"?

(If we weren't discussing something else right now, I'd also ask if you like D&D where it's impossible to change alignments once you have one for all nine alignments.)


The Operative from Serenity appears to feel some remorse for his actions "What I do is evil, I have no illusions about that"- but still considers them a "necessary evil".

Disclaimer: I have never seen Serenity.

However, the general impression I'm getting from your quotes is that the Operative has essentially redefined "evil," with regard to his own actions, to mean, if he was honest enough to admit it, something much closer to "actions which are made good by necessity and those wimps who presume to judge me don't have the guts to take." Saying "what I do is evil" doesn't count for diddly-squat if you keep doing it anyway.

KillianHawkeye
2010-07-13, 10:06 PM
Yeah, acknowledging that your actions are evil and going ahead and doing them anyway doesn't make you less evil.

hamishspence
2010-07-14, 04:37 AM
However, the general impression I'm getting from your quotes is that the Operative has essentially redefined "evil," with regard to his own actions, to mean, if he was honest enough to admit it, something much closer to "actions which are made good by necessity and those wimps who presume to judge me don't have the guts to take." Saying "what I do is evil" doesn't count for diddly-squat if you keep doing it anyway.

It's not just that- he also defines himself as "a monster" and says "The world I want to create has no place for me"

So (at least as written) he doesn't believe actions can be "made good by necessity"- but he still does them. He judges himself- and harshly.

In a sense, he's like various other "utopia justifies the means" characters- only without being under the illusion that this makes his acts not evil.

KillianHawkeye
2010-07-14, 06:56 AM
IMO, the Operative isn't actually remorseful about his actions in the movie anyway. He merely understands that he is evil and uses that fact to try to manipulate the heroes.

"Hey, I'm REALLY evil. Seriously. You'd better cooperate, or else there's no telling what I'll do next."

hamishspence
2010-07-14, 07:00 AM
Until he sees what happened on Miranda.

I see the operative as like a more genre-savvy version of various antivillains- he may want "a better world" but he knows the truth of his own actions, and doesn't bother to rationalize them as "not evil".

KillianHawkeye
2010-07-14, 07:07 PM
Until he sees what happened on Miranda.

He probably thought to himself "Damn, I thought I was evil, but these guys are just crazy!!"

Jack_Simth
2010-07-14, 07:53 PM
Just because he's evil? that's evil in itself.
There is a town. It's in the United States, Washington State, on McNeil Island (although there's almost certainly similar towns elsewhere). The population consists of people convicted of crimes, who have served their respective sentences.

The residents are not permitted to leave. They have been judged unfit to ever re-enter society, due to the nature and frequency of the crimes they were convicted of, as well as their psychiatric evaluations.

Which is the lesser evil:
1) Keeping them their against their will so that they will not harm others
2) Letting them go where they choose, which has a very, very high probability of recurrence of crimes committed?

How is the evaluation of a properly trained and certified psychiatrist after a conviction, so different from the results of a Paladin's Detect Evil after a conviction?

KillianHawkeye
2010-07-14, 08:46 PM
There is a town. It's in the United States, Washington State, on McNeil Island (although there's almost certainly similar towns elsewhere). The population consists of people convicted of crimes, who have served their respective sentences.

The residents are not permitted to leave. They have been judged unfit to ever re-enter society, due to the nature and frequency of the crimes they were convicted of, as well as their psychiatric evaluations.

Which is the lesser evil:
1) Keeping them their against their will so that they will not harm others
2) Letting them go where they choose, which has a very, very high probability of recurrence of crimes committed?

How is the evaluation of a properly trained and certified psychiatrist after a conviction, so different from the results of a Paladin's Detect Evil after a conviction?

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Reverent-One
2010-07-14, 09:51 PM
Again, if "glowing red when a paladin casts Detect Evil" is a crime, or adds further punishments to other crimes, how long do you suppose it would be before, in the absence of a convenient paladin (or someone conveniently able to claim fairly convincingly to be a paladin who happens to dislike the accused!) or in the presence of it being easier to attack than to ask questions, "Being evil is a crime" would mutate into, "Being a race with evil alignment tendencies is a crime, being an Always Evil race like a chromatic dragon is a capital offense because we court-running NPCs have all read their alignment entry in the Monster Manual and not the part where it defines the game term Alwaysnone of us have ever heard of one who wasn't evil and that proves there are none who aren't evil"?

You mean it's not already like that? Joe the farmer, Bob the local priest, or Jim the tavern owner get raided by goblins/orcs/ect, their buddies get raided by goblins/orcs/etc, they fail to meet any good goblins/orcs/etc, guess what they're going to think of them, all of them? At least with using Detect Evil, they're using a judgment of the individual to convict someone. I'm still not a big supporter of detect and smite, but your reasoning would not be why people shouldn't do it.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-14, 10:00 PM
Ya'll do realize that approximately 25% of the population is evil? Or was it 1/3? I can't remember. Anyway, Evil doesn't mean mean-less violence. The huge jerk who cares for no one but himself and regularly commits minor evil acts is still evil. You don't have to have committed massive atrocities to be evil.

Jack_Simth
2010-07-14, 10:07 PM
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Yet, how do you not do one of them, besides simply killing the subjects? You can let them go. You can kill them. You can permanently restrain them.

But these are people who have fulfilled their lawful sentences.

Do you force a Paladin to fall as soon as he becomes aware of such a situation (Evil act for doing anything about it, or Evil for abiding it's presence)?

Coidzor
2010-07-14, 10:29 PM
But these are people who have fulfilled their lawful sentences.

Well, obviously they've come up with some way to make the law accommodate such necessities.

KillianHawkeye
2010-07-15, 07:16 AM
Do you force a Paladin to fall as soon as he becomes aware of such a situation (Evil act for doing anything about it, or Evil for abiding it's presence)?

If a paladin takes no action, then by definition he has taken no evil action. Just don't invite the paladin. No falling required.