[3.5] A Complete List of Evil Acts

[Slipperychicken]

Since a Paladin joined the party in a 3.5 game I'm currently in, I've been worried about him falling. So to that end, I've been trying to compile a list of actions which the rules consider to be Evil. I know BoVD has a list near the front, but it seems vague and incomplete. Has anyone created a full list of actions which the rules, as written, consider to be Evil? Looks like no-one else has created such a list, so I might as well give a shot at it.

So far, I've got:

Book of Vile Darkness

Lying (pg 7)- Not necessarily Evil, but Paladins still fall for it.

Cheating (pg 7)

Theft (pg 7)

Betrayal (pg 7) -Does not have to be intentional.

Murder (pg 7) -Killing for a "nefarious purpose", like personal gain, theft, or pleasure.

Vengeance (pg 8)- not necessarily evil, but leads to evil acts.

Worshipping Evil Gods and Demons (pg 8)

Animating or Creating Undead (pg 8) -Even if the undead are commanded to do good, it's still Evil because of negative energy.

Casting Evil Spells (pg 8)

Damning or Harming Souls (pg 8)

Consorting with Fiends (pg 8)- Includes:

Allowing Fiends to exist*
Selling one's soul to Fiends
Summoning a Fiend
Helping Fiends


Creating Evil Creatures (pg 9)

Allowing Evil creatures to "remake fallen foes in their image"


Using others for Personal Gain (pg 9)

Sacrificing another for a boon


Greed (pg 9)- Although not an Evil Act in and of itself (it's not an act at all, but a motivation), it can easily lead to Evil Acts.

Bullying or Cowing Innocents (pg 9)- Includes use of political and magical power in coercion, as well as physical power.

Bringing Despair (pg 9)

Tempting Others to do Wrong(pg 9)

Tapping into Evil Power (pg 77)- Regardless of effects or reason for it, it's Evil. Period. This one's really broad, covering any Evil (Ex)traordinary, natural (when there's no tag), (Su)pernatural, (Sp)ell-like, and so on.


Book of Exalted Deeds


Forcing Anyone to Commit an Evil Act (pg 10)



Using a Poison that Deals Ability Damage (pg 34) Using Drow knockout-poison is not evil.

Killing a Good Creature to Harvest its Parts or Organs (pg 37)

Committing Murder for Money (pg 73)

Notes:
"In the D&D universe... an Evil act is an Evil act no matter what good result it may acheive" (BoED pg 9) -Although the BoED acknowledges that an Evil act might cause greater good, the act remains Evil.

*Note: Although it is not explicitly stated, you could make the argument that a Paladin doesn't allow Fiends to exist in the same sense that a police department doesn't allow illegal drug deals to exist: it does its best to combat them, and by no means approves of their existence, but eliminating them entirely is too impractical to consider

If any of you have a partial or complete list of Evil Acts, post it here, along with source and page number, and I'll update the list.

[LadyLexi]

The level of evil is a little different between those acts.
Lying and stealing hardly match up to raising undead and worshiping demons.

[mattie_p]

I don't have anything to add to the list at this point that you haven't covered, but I cast Summon Hamishspence to assist.

[Slipperychicken]

The level of evil is a little different between those acts.
Lying and stealing hardly match up to raising undead and worshiping demons.

Honestly, severity isn't really covered in any rules I've seen, nor does it have much mechanical impact. In the end, severity is really up to each individual group to decide. What I'm trying to do is compile a list of things that a Paladin would fall for by the rules, and that includes any Evil Act, whether it's stealing from a cookie jar or sacrificing virgins to Asmodeus.

[That_guy_there]

what you have is really the only list compiled in official sources that i've seen. You could extrapolate others (maybe) by going to the BoED and taking the opposite of whats in there...

As for severity small acts would count against you less than big acts. taking a cookie from someone elses jar wouldn't cause you to instantly become the eviliest SOB ever... just a little more evil than you were. Killing a million people with one evil spell however is another matter...

[Kudaku]

The helm of opposite alignment should probably be up there - put it on and your God tends to get mighty upset when the Paladin teenage years kick in and suddenly you're all chaotic evil up in his face.

On a slightly more serious note though, as has already been mentioned that list has a rather large gap between the degrees of seriousness. I don't think a paladin would automatically fall for telling a lie - it would depend on a variety of factors, such as the seriousness of the lie, the intent behind it, and the purpose for telling it. Keep in mind that paladins devoted to Gods actually have a damn near omnipotent (most likely Good-aligned) deity considering their actions - it seems unlikely that he's going to base his rulings entirely upon the act with no concern what-so-ever for intent or outcome. Of course, if you're a paladin devoted to a LN God then you're probably hosed, but then again that's what you get for choosing him in the first place.

The key wording in the paladin code of conduct is "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities".
Judging from that phrasing then I'd say that there are minor penalties and major penalties for breaking the code of conduct.

To me telling a lie to help your party infiltrate a slaver's ring or using drow sleep potion to pacify the guards in order to help the slaves escape would qualify as minor infractions at best - they might have repercussions (a temporary loss of spell powers, a morale penalty on attacks for 24 hours, a need for meditation and maybe a tithe to the church etc) but a complete Fall for ultimately doing Good and serving Law seems harsh.

[Flickerdart]

The key wording in the paladin code of conduct is "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities".
Judging from that phrasing then I'd say that there are minor penalties and major penalties for breaking the code of conduct.

To me telling a lie to help your party infiltrate a slaver's ring or using drow sleep potion to pacify the guards in order to help the slaves escape would qualify as minor infractions at best - they might have repercussions (a temporary loss of spell powers, a morale penalty on attacks for 24 hours, a need for meditation and maybe a tithe to the church etc) but a complete Fall for ultimately doing Good and serving Law seems harsh.
You are reading that incorrectly. See that "or" there? Any evil act makes you fall, regardless of magnitude. However, if you negligibly violate the code of conduct in a non-evil way (such as, you know, a chaotic way) then you're fine.

[whibla]

So far, I've got:
...
Consorting with Fiends (pg 8)- Includes:

Allowing Fiends to exist
...
Helping fiends


What if the fiend is good, or at least non-evil? What if the fiend is trying to save the lives of good people?

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Better brush off that Atonement spell...

[Slipperychicken]

What if the fiend is good, or at least non-evil? What if the fiend is trying to save the lives of good people?

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Better brush off that Atonement spell...

Yes, the rules for this sort of thing, like many things in 3.5, are sometimes bizarre or unintuitive :smalltongue: That's part of why I'm making the list: to clarify what the rules think is evil or not.

[Blisstake]

This is really something that rules should never dictate though, and probably the second thing (after multiclass exp penalties) that DMs will want to change. :smalltongue:

[Kudaku]

You are reading that incorrectly. See that "or" there? Any evil act makes you fall, regardless of magnitude. However, if you negligibly violate the code of conduct in a non-evil way (such as, you know, a chaotic way) then you're fine.

By that ruling and the additional rules in the book of vile darkness a paladin would be completely abandoned by his God and divested of all his divine power for cheating at cards (cheating), telling someone his socks were blue when they were actually red (lying), saving a dying friend's life with a wand of Infernal Healing (using an evil spell), or by telling Timmy's mom that Timmy isn't actually staying over at his place tonight because Timmy's going to the rock concert and he doesn't know why Timmy said that he'd be staying at the paladin's house (betrayal).

[Masque]

Since a Paladin joined the party in a 3.5 game I'm currently in, I've been worried about him falling.

you might suggest the gray guard prestige in complete scoundrel for extra flexibility to your player. they still need to atone for things, but the penalty for straying from their code is lessened.

[Slipperychicken]

By that ruling and the additional rules in the book of vile darkness a paladin would be completely abandoned by his God and divested of all his divine power for cheating at cards (cheating), telling someone his socks were blue when they were actually red (lying), saving a dying friend's life with a wand of Infernal Healing (using an evil spell), or by telling Timmy's mom that Timmy isn't actually staying over at his place tonight because Timmy's going to the rock concert and he doesn't know why Timmy said that he'd be staying at the paladin's house (betrayal).

That's exactly how it's supposed to work. Paladins are paragons of Good. They don't do Evil, ever. Those extremely harsh restrictions are also why I don't play Paladins myself, and usually point newer players in the direction of Clerics or Crusaders when they want to play that archetype.

[hamishspence]

I don't have anything to add to the list at this point that you haven't covered, but I cast Summon Hamishspence to assist.
Heh. :smallamused:

A month or so back I did a complete list of all alignment-related information, with books and page numbers:

Alignment Summary (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241789)

though I didn't get round to finishing off the Hero Builders Guidebook quiz answers- which answers tend to be associated with which alignments.

[Gray Mage]

I'd say lying and theft need to be better defined.

Some forms of lying (such as lying due to not knowing it's untrue, white lies and lies by ommision) shouldn't make a paladin fall, IMO. Expecially the first one, since a clever player that doesn't mind having to use an atonement spell could exploit it (Need to know where the macguffin/BBEG/plot device is, or who's telling the truth? Just keep guessing and atoning until you don't fall, and thus find the correct answer. Who said only wizards get to play 20 questions with the universe?).

Also, I could see needing to steal the macguffin from the BBEG, which by the list you've got, would mean the paladin falls.

[Siosilvar]

Allowing Fiends to exist

*facepalm* Every 9th level Cleric and 13th level Wizard is now constantly performing the evil act of not going completely bonkers and plane shifting to the Abyss to suicide-assault demons. They know fiends exist on the lower planes, and they have the ability to go there and kill them, so it's obviously an evil act if they let them continue to exist!

This is why I play alignments by ear (as I imagine most people do). RAW starts to get pretty dumb when it comes to alignment, as some people have pointed out already.

[Slipperychicken]

Heh. :smallamused:

A month or so back I did a complete list of all alignment-related information, with books and page numbers:

Alignment Summary (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241789)


This looks useful, and I'll take a closer look once I can get around to it. Thanks, Hamishspence :smallsmile:

[That_guy_there]

By that ruling and the additional rules in the book of vile darkness a paladin would be completely abandoned by his God and divested of all his divine power for cheating at cards (cheating), telling someone his socks were blue when they were actually red (lying), saving a dying friend's life with a wand of Infernal Healing (using an evil spell), or by telling Timmy's mom that Timmy isn't actually staying over at his place tonight because Timmy's going to the rock concert and he doesn't know why Timmy said that he'd be staying at the paladin's house (betrayal).

Wait... why is this Paladin cheating at cards, saving his dying friend with an evil spells, lying about his socks, ANDbetraying Timmy!? Poor poor Timmy....

Seriously though... Paladins have a rough time of it as far asw Raw goes. most of these fall under the willing part of comminting an evil act though. (The spell is a matter of falling in order to save a life. Which i guess a Paladin is expected to be willing to do?)

Obviously you are aware of the discussions happening over here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248163 as mostly everyone in this thread is saying the same stuff there too, but Evil is evil in D&D and alignment is surprisingly rigid by RAW. (Pathfinder has lessened this rigidness a little though Paladins still have rough restrictions)

[hamishspence]

This looks useful, and I'll take a closer look once I can get around to it. Thanks, Hamishspence :smallsmile:

The last bit from the Hero Builder's Guidebook:
(the "or even" examples represent the more strongly aligned response)

When it comes to injuring or killing guards in a prison break:
Evil characters might
be prepared to do so, feeling that they guards knew the risks when they took the job

or even regard ithe guards as deserving it for locking them up
Neutral (Good/Evil) might
not do so, except for minor wounds that will heal quickly

or even avoid doing so completely because the guards are just doing their jobs

When it comes to the right of a noble to badly treat their serfs:
Good characters might
feel that nobles should not do so, and rule as kindly as possible

or feel that no-one has the right to treat another badly, period
Neutral (Good/Evil) characters might
feel that sometimes only fear will motivate serfs

or even feel that the serfs are lucky they aren't slaves

When it comes to the character having accidentally committed a crime:
Good characters might
confess, throwing themselves on the mercy of the court

or even both confess and attempt to make restitution to the victim
Evil characters might
hide their involvement, lying if they have to

or even try and pin the crime on another

When it comes to confessing to a crime they're guilty of:
Lawful characters might
do so because it might get them a lighter sentence

or even because they feel it's their duty to do so
Neutral (Law Chaos) might
make the magistrates prove their guilt

or even attempt to "prove" their innocence

When it comes to repressing a revolutionary political opinion if there's a danger of punishment:
Neutral (Law/Chaos) might
not do so, only privately expressing their opinion to their friends

or even feel that politics isn't worth getting worked up about
Chaotic characters might
do so because "somebody has to speak the truth"

or even because they'd rather be punished than remain silent (Up the revolution!)

Regarding being ordered to testify about a crime they witnessed, if it would delay a journey significantly:
Lawful characters might
remain reluctantly, testify, and leave

Or even remain till the conclusion of the trial, in case further evidence is needed
Chaotic characters might
deny they saw anything

or even slip out of town to avoid testifying

When it comes to the best use of wealth:
Good characters might
feel it is for providing for the needs of friends and family

or even that it is for providing for the destitute and less fortunate
Evil characters might
feel it is for staying on top of the heap themselves

or even that it is also for preventing others rising to the same level

When confronted by beggars:
Good characters might
give moderately

or even give generously
Neutral (Good/Evil) might
give only what they wouldn't miss (a copper or two at most

or ignore them as the character walks by

When they have the magic to fool people into thinking their coppers are gold:
Evil characters might
do so, but only cheat the rich merchants

or even buy as much as they can with the fakes
Neutral (Good/Evil) might
not do so, because they feel it's too risky

or even because they feel the merchants have families to feed

When it comes to choosing between a lucrative job and a secure, steady one:
Lawful characters might
pick the secure one unless the other is exceptionally lucrative

or even always pick the secure one because they plan for the long term
Neutral (Law/Chaos) might
usually pick the lucrative one (but at least look at the secure one)

or even feel that steady work sounds like drudgery

When it comes to the best path to wealth:
Lawful characters might
feel that it's following a long-term plan that incorporates a comfortable level of risk

or even that it's hard work and perseverance
Chaotic characters might
feel that it's staying flexible so they can take advantage of good opportunities

or even that it's a matter of luck and being in the right place at the right time

When it comes to continuing a task they've been contracted for, once it suddenly gets much more dangerous:
Chaotic characters might
insist on renegotiating

or even take the view that once it's no longer a good deal, the deal is off
Lawful characters might
stick to it because it's good to have a reputation for dependability

or even because their word is their bond

[Togath]

Why do people even use alignment and codes of conduct?, they're(the alignments and code of conducts) completely illogical most of the time, I would suggest finding a new dm to the op.
The things mentioned in the post above mine are good examples of the flaws with the systems.

[Slipperychicken]

Why do people even use alignment and codes of conduct?, they're(the alignments and code of conducts) completely illogical most of the time, I would suggest finding a new dm to the op.
The things mentioned in the post above mine are good examples of the flaws with the systems.

My DM is pretty reasonable most of the time (I would say he's too permissive :smallannoyed:, rules-wise), and I personally would rather that alignment had no mechanical effect on the game. But, for better or worse, it is a part of the game, and one which requires much clarification to be adjudicated properly.

That's the primary goal of this resource: for prospective Paladins (as well as some other classes, like Risen Martyr), and the DMs who run games for them, to know exactly what they're signing up for when they say "I will never commit an evil act". Ideally, this will allow groups to more-easily adjudicate "Paladin-problems", and give a starting point for groups to adjust their interpretation of Evil Acts in accordance with their views and playstyles, should they differ from RAW.

[JoshuaZ]

What if the fiend is good, or at least non-evil? What if the fiend is trying to save the lives of good people?

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Better brush off that Atonement spell...

What's even worse than that is that there was an official web supplement with a redeemed succubus that became a paladin. Apparently not killing herself immediately should make her fall?

[LadyLexi]

I recently played a paladin and I managed to be good even at extreme detriment to my group. When the guards that I knew had been paid off by the Thieves guild to arrest me came, my party escaped and I offered the manacles I had on me if they were not carrying any of their own. When we were later interrogating a prisoner, who I would not allow anyone to harm, one of my party members lied to him and I chose to say nothing to the contrary. After a bit of discussion it was decided that it was more of a neutral act than an evil one. Particularly because it was to uncover a wicked plot against the city.

I feel that is the extent of the wiggle room. Betrayal is more than just turning in your friends, its abandoning oaths and bonds of loyalty. If I turn in my CG halfing party member for theft to the local authorities, I am not committing an act of betrayal. If I slit his throat while he sleeps I am.

[Wyntonian]

I dunno, I consider evil acts to be like porn; I know it when I see it.


I actually go to great lengths to reduce black/white morality as much as possible in my games. It doesn't really add anything.

[maximus25]

Consorting with Fiends (pg 8)- Includes:
Allowing Fiends to exist


So Paladins have to hunt down every single Fiend they can or they are considered evil?

[Slipperychicken]

Consorting with Fiends (pg 8)- Includes:
Allowing Fiends to exist


So Paladins have to hunt down every single Fiend they can or they are considered evil?

I'll just post the relevant text. Here ya go.


BoVD pg 8; CONSORTING WITH FIENDS
If characters can be judged by the company they keep, then those who deal with fiends—demons and devils—are surely evil beings themselves. Fiends are the ultimate expression of evil given animate form—literally evil incarnate. Destroying a fiend is always a good act. Allowing a fiend to exist, let alone summoning one or helping one, is clearly evil.
Occasionally, a spellcaster may summon a fiendish creature to accomplish some task. Such an act is evil, but not terribly so. However, some characters, particularly those who worship demons or devils or see them as valuable allies, may work with (or for) fiends to further their own ends. Worse still, some mortals sell their souls to fiends in order to gain more power or support. Although dealing with fiends or
selling souls is risky at best, the lust for power is a temptation too strong for some to resist. But fiends have great power, infinite life spans, and a delight for double-crossing others, so it’s not surprising that most characters who ask for a fiend’s aid end up on the wrong end of the deals they make.

You could make the argument that a Paladin doesn't allow Fiends to exist in the same sense that a police department doesn't allow illegal drug deals to exist: it does its best to combat them, and by no means approves of their existence, but eliminating them entirely is too impractical to consider.

[Togath]

I'll just post the relevant text. Here ya go.

Doesn't this make the malconvoker a paradox?, Also more what I meant in my first post is that if you use alignments as written to get weird little paradoxes, at least without rewriting alignments and abilities, another thing that strikes me as odd is that all things relating to negative energy are "evil" while negative energy is just as harmful to evil creatures(including demons, devils, and daemons) as it is to good creatures. I also just dont understand why people feel that you need to stick 100% to the rules as written for alignments instead of just using them as vague suggestions, when they're as badly balanced as core classes
edit; aye I can understand the veiw you mentioned in your edit, as it is easier to impliment and makes more sense then the rules as written, and is more the style of change to alignments i'm talking about

[Kudaku]

Wait... why is this Paladin cheating at cards, saving his dying friend with an evil spells, lying about his socks, ANDbetraying Timmy!? Poor poor Timmy....

And all in one day, it was a very busy saturday!


Seriously though... Paladins have a rough time of it as far asw Raw goes. most of these fall under the willing part of comminting an evil act though. (The spell is a matter of falling in order to save a life. Which i guess a Paladin is expected to be willing to do?)

Obviously you are aware of the discussions happening over here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248163 as mostly everyone in this thread is saying the same stuff there too, but Evil is evil in D&D and alignment is surprisingly rigid by RAW. (Pathfinder has lessened this rigidness a little though Paladins still have rough restrictions)

I think part of the problem is that BoVD/BoED specifically point to various acts and goes "that's evil. No ifs, no buts, that is always evil no matter what kind of motivation or motive you have".

In the real world, obviously it doesn't really work that way. Speeding to bring your about-to-give-birth wife to the hospital is illegal but I'm guessing most people would still do it if only because they prioritize the life of their wife over the ticket they'll have to pay if they're caught.

Similarly, lying and saying that your family's rich to keep your extremist kidnappers from decapitating you on the spot should probably fly somewhat under the good/evil radar.

Now, in my campaigns we fix this quite easily by giving the paladins more leeway based on what deity they follow. Indeed, one of the most interesting characters I had the pleasure of DM'ing for was a halfling rogue/paladin who had been found on the street and converted to the faith of her deity. His strategies radically differed from most traditional paladins in that he'd actively use disguises and lies to infiltrate evil groups to bust them open (he specialized in thieves' guilds where his rogue skills quickly made him a valued asset), and he'd constantly use underhanded ways such as sneak attacks to come out on top in combat. Of course, he'd still never kill an innocent person or risk offending his deity by doing genuinely evil acts.

He did his God's bidding in the best way he knew how. His motto was essentially "doing good by not being stupid".

[LadyLexi]

Kodaku, that basically covers the Gray Guard PrC.

[TuggyNE]

In the real world, obviously it doesn't really work that way. Speeding to bring your about-to-give-birth wife to the hospital is illegal but I'm guessing most people would still do it if only because they prioritize the life of their wife over the ticket they'll have to pay if they're caught.

Illegal ≠ evil, generally speaking, in fantasy or out. It isn't morally wrong in any fashion to go fast in a car; risking others' lives may be a problem, but not necessarily a major one. The main point is that, for social reasons, it's illegal.

[Kudaku]

Illegal ≠ evil, generally speaking, in fantasy or out. It isn't morally wrong in any fashion to go fast in a car; risking others' lives may be a problem, but not necessarily a major one. The main point is that, for social reasons, it's illegal.

Fair enough, how about breaking into a cabin and stealing food and firewood to keep your family alive in a blizzard - stealing is after all undeniably evil. It's not hard to come up with examples where you do acts that break the 3.5 definition of good and evil in two.

[Reaver225]

What if the fiend is good, or at least non-evil? What if the fiend is trying to save the lives of good people?

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Better brush off that Atonement spell...


What's even worse than that is that there was an official web supplement with a redeemed succubus that became a paladin. Apparently not killing herself immediately should make her fall?

Just a point, but fiends are defined to be Always Evil.

If a "fiend" has been redeemed clearly she wasn't (or is not now) a proper fiend to begin with.

If a fiend is trying to save the lives of good people as part of an evil plot it's still a good act, and therefore... I don't know, the fiend rises since even though it's only doing Good acts for the Greater Evil, it's still broken it's code of BLARGH EVIL.

[Zale]

If committing an Evil act for the Greater Good is Evil..

..Then committing an Good act for the Greater Evil is.. Good?

[Reaver225]

Exactly! Acts are absolute for either good or evil, so therefore helping someone doing a good act cannot be an evil act.

Unless you're helping by doing evil acts.

Of course.

[Arcanist]

I'm not sure "Becoming a Lich" is on this list but it should be :smallconfused:

The art of becoming a Lich is literally called "The Ritual of the Endless Night" / "Ceremony of Becoming" and its many descriptions is being


The process is often described as requiring the creation and consumption of a deadly potion, the Elixir of Defilation, which is to be drunk on a full moon; although the exact details of the potion are described differently in various sources, the creation of the potion almost universally entails acts of utter evil, such as using as an ingredient the blood of an infant slain by the potential sorcerer's own hand, or other, similarly vile components. The potion invariably kills the drinker but if the process is successful it rises again some days later as a Lich.

I can't find the source where it says Lichcraft is an evil act but I know its somewhere... Honestly you cannot limit your list to 3.5 because 3.5 BARELY goes over alignment, save in maybe... 4 or 6 books? I'd make this list encompass a list of Evil acts in RP'ing in general. :smalltongue: However I'm an omnibus kind of guy instead of a guidebook kind of guy so pick your poison. All-Encompassing or a quick overview.

[hamishspence]

Just a point, but fiends are defined to be Always Evil.

If a "fiend" has been redeemed clearly she wasn't (or is not now) a proper fiend to begin with.

The MM makes it clear that "always" in fact allows for rare exceptions. Not to mention that even if all fiends are "created evil"- alignment change is always possible.

"Fiend" means "Outsider with the Evil subtype". In its description of each alignment subtype at the end of the book, the MM points out that creatures can have an actual alignment differing from the subtype- but will still detect as the subtype. So a Good or Neutral fiend will still detect as Evil.

The WoTC site has stats for a redeemed demon fiend- a paladin, no less. She still retains her Evil and Chaotic subtypes: The Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a)



I think part of the problem is that BoVD/BoED specifically point to various acts and goes "that's evil. No ifs, no buts, that is always evil no matter what kind of motivation or motive you have".

It does mention "lying" and "vengeance" as a bit more borderline- and not always qualifying as evil acts.

There's also the approach that Good characters can commit very mild Evil acts and remain Good- it's the preponderance of their actions that defines their alignment (on top of their "general moral and personal attitudes").

[Flickerdart]

If committing an Evil act for the Greater Good is Evil..

..Then committing an Good act for the Greater Evil is.. Good?
Next character idea get.

[Zale]

Next character idea get.


http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/dx20061204_asmodeus.jpg

Asmodeus. Saving adorable puppies for world domination!

[Slipperychicken]

Exactly! Acts are absolute for either good or evil, so therefore helping someone doing a good act cannot be an evil act.

Unless you're helping by doing evil acts.

Of course.

Whether I agree with it or not, I ought to allow BoED to defend itself here. It does allow the possibility of Evil acts facilitating a greater Good (and even being justified by them), but those acts do remain Evil as per RAW. It seems like the ruling is intended to prevent players from "abusing" the Ends Justify the Means mentality to perform truly horrendous acts and still call themselves Good.


BoED; ENDS AND MEANS
When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character might easily consider the use of torture in such a circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very good end justifies a mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe?

In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act
no matter what good result it may achieve. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood. Any exalted character risks losing exalted feats or other benefits of celestial favor if he commits any act of evil for any reason. Whether or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly cannot make evil means any less evil.

Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom: “I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity.” For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats.

Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats the purity of the good character’s soul as a commodity (like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger than the individual character. What the character sees as a personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil’s favor. The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable.

Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them, no matter how great the need.

Sometimes a situation might demand that a good character cooperate with an evil one in order to accomplish a worthy and righteous goal. The evil character might not even be pursuing the same goal. For example, a brief civil war has put a new ruling house in power in a drow city, and the new rulers start actively raiding the surface world. A party of good adventurers travels into the depths of the earth to stop the drow raids. At the same time, a party of evil drow loyal to the deposed house seeks to overthrow the new rulers and restore their house to its position of power. The two groups have different but mutually compatible goals, and it is possible—within certain limit —for them to cooperate with each other. However, the good characters must not tolerate any evil acts committed by an evil ally during the time of their alliance, and can’t simply turn a blind eye to such acts. They must ensure that helping the drow will put a stop to the surface raids, which might entail a level of trust the drow simply do not deserve. And of course they must not turn on their erstwhile allies when victory is in sight, betraying the trust the drow placed in them. Such a situation is dangerous both physically and morally, but cooperating with evil creatures is not necessarily evil in itself.

[Zale]

Good takes all the fun out of things. :smallfrown:

[mattie_p]

It's a shame that for a game and company so conscious to keep themselves in good graces with the public, there were no attempts to provide good characters with as many options as they do evil ones. Or at least options as powerful as the evil options.

[Reaver225]

The MM makes it clear that "always" in fact allows for rare exceptions. Not to mention that even if all fiends are "created evil"- alignment change is always possible.

"Fiend" means "Outsider with the Evil subtype". In its description of each alignment subtype at the end of the book, the MM points out that creatures can have an actual alignment differing from the subtype- but will still detect as the subtype. So a Good or Neutral fiend will still detect as Evil.

The WoTC site has stats for a redeemed demon fiend- a paladin, no less. She still retains her Evil and Chaotic subtypes: The Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a)That's fair enough. Though it does beg the question as to why celestials, when they fall and turn into evil outsiders, don't keep the Good subtypes. Since, you know, the original fiends in some versions were Celestials.


Whether I agree with it or not, I ought to allow BoED to defend itself here. It does allow the possibility of Evil acts facilitating a greater Good (and even being justified by them), but those acts do remain Evil as per RAW. It seems like the ruling is intended to prevent players from "abusing" the Ends Justify the Means mentality to perform truly horrendous acts and still call themselves Good.That's - great, but is there such explanations about individuals using Ends Justifying the Means mentality to perform truly righteous and just and overall Good acts and still call them Evil?

[Oscredwin]

In the real world, obviously it doesn't really work that way. Speeding to bring your about-to-give-birth wife to the hospital is illegal but I'm guessing most people would still do it if only because they prioritize the life of their wife over the ticket they'll have to pay if they're caught.


In the real world would this cause a real life paladin to lose his divine power?

I would say that good and evil aren't well defined outside of DnD either. We have approximations, legal vs illegal, allowed by holy text X, following the categorical imperative, or the opinion of some trusted authority.

If I'm wrong and someone can link a source that has a universally accepted, unambiguous definition of good and/or evil, let me know.

[Flickerdart]

In the real world would this cause a real life paladin to lose his divine power?
Yes. It's why none of them have any.

[Slipperychicken]

In the real world would this cause a real life paladin to lose his divine power?


Well, the real life Paladins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin) aren't around anymore. Besides, it's unlikely that they had divine power in the first place, so I'll go with no :smalltongue:

Ask your real life DM :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

That's fair enough. Though it does beg the question as to why celestials, when they fall and turn into evil outsiders, don't keep the Good subtypes. Since, you know, the original fiends in some versions were Celestials.

It may be that they have to be "invited in" to the Lower Planes. Currently, certain devils are descended from corrupted celestials (the erinyes) and some are those very celestials who fell millennia ago.

Some archfiends didn't fall till quite a bit later- Baalzebul, for example.

There are in fact evil celestials who have retained their Good subtype- Elder Evils provides an example of one- a planetar.

My guess is that once an evil celestial joins the forces of the Lower Planes, it gets transformed, changing its subtypes- and maybe even giving it a fiendish race. Baalzebul was once an archon- now he's a baatezu.

[Arcane_Secrets]

*facepalm* Every 9th level Cleric and 13th level Wizard is now constantly performing the evil act of not going completely bonkers and plane shifting to the Abyss to suicide-assault demons. They know fiends exist on the lower planes, and they have the ability to go there and kill them, so it's obviously an evil act if they let them continue to exist!

This is why I play alignments by ear (as I imagine most people do). RAW starts to get pretty dumb when it comes to alignment, as some people have pointed out already.

I don't think any god of goodness no matter how severe expects rank suicide out of their followers. Going to the lower planes as soon as you can and trying to take on the hordes of demons is going to get someone pasted or worse.

[Annos]

Paladins murder hundreds of innocent hobgoblins and goblins through pure rasism and prejudise. Their are no good acts in D&D, for someone always has to suffer.

[2xMachina]

The MM makes it clear that "always" in fact allows for rare exceptions. Not to mention that even if all fiends are "created evil"- alignment change is always possible.

"Fiend" means "Outsider with the Evil subtype". In its description of each alignment subtype at the end of the book, the MM points out that creatures can have an actual alignment differing from the subtype- but will still detect as the subtype. So a Good or Neutral fiend will still detect as Evil.

The WoTC site has stats for a redeemed demon fiend- a paladin, no less. She still retains her Evil and Chaotic subtypes: The Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a)



And so... she must destroy herself? Cause paladins' can't let fiends exist after all.

[Caylus]

Killing a Good Creature to Harvest its Parts or Organs (pg 37)
Wait, wut?

It's only an evil act to kill sentient creatures for organs if they're good? :smallwink:

I'm never going near an hospital again if I play a Lawful Neutral character :smallbiggrin:

[Thomasinx]

Ok. Here's an idea... (one which I'm surprised noone has said yet...)

Equip the paladin with a Phylactery of Faithfulness. (1000gp)

This lets the DM decide if an action is the kind of thing that would tick off a god (before the player does it), warning the player by making the phylactery glow (or something). Likewise, the paladin will never accidentally fall, since they're fine as long as they never do anything that the phylactery warns them against.

This makes it so that there is no need to clearly define rules of behavior, which will always have exceptions. Plus, the DM can play it by ear, and so can the player, since they won't have to be anal about not stepping over the boundary.

[Telok]

Am I correct in understanding that this list allows a paladin to locate a young pickpocket and follow him around until he commits a crime (steal an apple from a cart) and then murderize him? Followed by drinking the blood, eating the heart and brain, skinning and gutting, before and finally making sausage and a new pair of leather boots for himself?

It also seems that a drunken, whoring, bigoted, racist, gambler is perfectly capable of being a perfectly good paladin. Although I must admin that I did make that character. I haven't gotten to play him yet, but I have a character sheet for him (he has six illegitimate children and a wife in another province).

[hamishspence]

And so... she must destroy herself? Cause paladins' can't let fiends exist after all.

I suspect "Murder is an evil act" overrides "Allowing a fiend to exist is an evil act"- otherwise, as you say, such a fiend paladin could not exist.

Is it possible to murder an evil creature, or a "not-innocent" creature? I would say yes. Eberron Campaign Setting does point out that not every Evil creature deserves to be attacked.

And since Murder is a corrupt act in FC2- you can use the "I may not murder" reason for not attacking Evil creatures without good cause.

[Treblain]

Am I correct in understanding that this list allows a paladin to locate a young pickpocket and follow him around until he commits a crime (steal an apple from a cart) and then murderize him? Followed by drinking the blood, eating the heart and brain, skinning and gutting, before and finally making sausage and a new pair of leather boots for himself?.

No. First, even if stealing is an evil act, committing an evil act doesn't make you evil. The list of evil acts here is for the benefit of paladins, who Fall on account of a single willful evil act. Non-Exalted Good characters can commit Evil acts at DM discretion; it's just paladins who have a RAW restriction.

Second, that paladin would be disrespecting local authorities, which is a violation of his code, and desecrating a corpse is pretty obviously evil. And if he explained that he was righteously killing an evil pickpocket, the authorities would ask if he Detected Evil first. Since he didn't, he would be lying or misleading them, which is evil and in violation of the Code. Welcome to Fallsville, population: You and Miko.

Thirdly, the paladin doesn't get enough skill points to invest in Craft (Leatherworking), so he can't make those leather boots. Sorry. :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

And if he explained that he was righteously killing an evil pickpocket, the authorities would ask if he Detected Evil first. Since he didn't, he would be lying or misleading them, which is evil and in violation of the Code. Welcome to Fallsville, population: You and Miko.

Lying isn't evil automatically- killing beings without sufficient justification, however, could end up qualifying as murder.

"Killing an evil being for profit is not evil, though not good, because prevents its further predations on the innocent" is stated in BoVD to only apply to creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil.

And these days, it seems like no creature type, not even fiends, is completely irredeemable.

[Slipperychicken]

Am I correct in understanding that this list allows a paladin to locate a young pickpocket and follow him around until he commits a crime (steal an apple from a cart) and then murderize him? Followed by drinking the blood, eating the heart and brain, skinning and gutting, before and finally making sausage and a new pair of leather boots for himself?

It also seems that a drunken, whoring, bigoted, racist, gambler is perfectly capable of being a perfectly good paladin. Although I must admin that I did make that character. I haven't gotten to play him yet, but I have a character sheet for him (he has six illegitimate children and a wife in another province).

I'm willing to bet the Paladin ate the kid for "perverted pleasure", for which he falls, and if he did it with the intention of making leather boots, it's totally Murder (nefarious purpose). You could also count that as "using others for personal gain". Betrayal and Cheating are on the list as well, which may cover the illegitimate children, and definitely cover any time he cheated at dice. If he intentionally Brings Despair through his racism/bigotry/drunkenness, or uses it to Bully the Innocent, then that falls him too.

The second paragraph would be a very hard sell for a Paladin, but you could make it work. He'd probably be a decent person with the hoops which Paladinhood makes him jump through.



Wait, wut?

It's only an evil act to kill sentient creatures for organs if they're good? :smallwink:

I'm never going near an hospital again if I play a Lawful Neutral character :smallbiggrin:

For a hospital harvesting people's organs after killing them? I count Murder (killing someone for organs is "nefarious" in my book), Betrayal (you don't want your organs harvested), and Using Others for Personal Gain. Lying too, if they ever promised not to kill you for your organs.

[hamishspence]

Might depend on if the hospital's in a setting with the Hippocratic Oath, or a close equivalent: "First, do no harm".

"To save the many" as a justification for "killing the few" might be hard to define as "nefarious"- but does it really matter? In real life, altruistic motivations won't necessarily get one off a murder conviction- so why should they result in the act being redefined as "not murder" in D&D?

[Zale]

For a hospital harvesting people's organs after killing them? I count Murder (killing someone for organs is "nefarious" in my book), Betrayal (you don't want your organs harvested), and Using Others for Personal Gain. Lying too, if they ever promised not to kill you for your organs.

Then a Paladin falls instantly for not letting people harvest their organs.

[hamishspence]

Why? "Good implies making personal sacrifices"- but sacrificing one's own life requires a very large good consequence to be justifiable.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a



Should a paladin sacrifice herself to save others? In the broadest sense, yes, since doing so is the ultimate act of good. However, she must also have enough respect for her own life and ability to make sure that her sacrifice brings about a significant benefit for others. A paladin who holds the only key to saving the world should not sacrifice herself needlessly against an orc horde. As long as the paladin keeps the greater good in mind, she is adhering to her code.

[Zale]

Why? "Good implies making personal sacrifices"- but sacrificing one's own life requires a very large good consequence to be justifiable.



For a hospital harvesting people's organs after killing them? I count Murder (killing someone for organs is "nefarious" in my book), Betrayal (you don't want your organs harvested), and Using Others for Personal Gain. Lying too, if they ever promised not to kill you for your organs.

Betrayal is an evil act.

I'm not really serious, because I know that D&D Alignment is utterly ridiculous.

[hamishspence]

Betrayal is an evil act.

I'm not really serious, because I know that D&D Alignment is utterly ridiculous.
Why would "not letting other people harvest the paladin's organs" ever qualify as "betrayal"?

I think you're exaggerating the ridiculousness of alignment somewhat.

That said, there's lots of cases where clearer cases of "betrayal" shouldn't qualify as Evil- a servant of the Big Bad "betraying" him by gaining a conscience and defecting to the Forces of Good, for example.

Thus- betrayal can be argued as context-sensitive, like lying is- rather than "always evil".

[Zale]

Why would "not letting other people harvest the paladin's organs" ever qualify as "betrayal"?

I think you're exaggerating the ridiculousness of alignment somewhat.

That said, there's lots of cases where clearer cases of "betrayal" shouldn't qualify as Evil- a servant of the Big Bad "betraying" him by gaining a conscience and defecting to the Forces of Good, for example.

Thus- betrayal can be argued as context-sensitive, like lying is- rather than "always evil".



Book of Vile Darkness

Lying (pg 7)- Not necessarily Evil, but Paladins still fall for it.

Cheating (pg 7)

Theft (pg 7)

Betrayal (pg 7) -Does not have to be intentional.

Murder (pg 7) -Killing for a "nefarious purpose", like personal gain, theft, or pleasure.



Notes:
"In the D&D universe... an Evil act is an Evil act no matter what good result it may acheive" (BoED pg 9) -Although the BoED acknowledges that an Evil act might cause greater good, the act remains Evil.


It appears that published material disagrees with you.

[hamishspence]

The published material doesn't give a definition of "betrayal" though.

Paladins fall for lying when it qualifies as a "gross violation of the paladin's code" as well as when it qualifies as an evil act- not all lies fit both of these.

[Zale]

The published material doesn't give a definition of "betrayal" though.

Paladins fall for lying when it qualifies as a "gross violation of the paladin's code" as well as when it qualifies as an evil act- not all lies fit both of these.


Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

While the Book of Vile Darkness may define Betrayal, I don't have that book. So I can't refute that.

However, the Paladin's Code does clearly mention Lying. But, I also doubt that every lie violates the code.

But repeatedly lying may..

[hamishspence]

BoVD's Betrayal section:


A betrayal is often nothing more than an elaborate lie, but its implications are often greater.

Such an act involves earning someone's trust and then using that trust against him or her.

Common acts of betrayal include learning and then revealing secrets, or using trust to get close to one's enemies for an attack or theft.

Betrayal does not have to be intentional- or at least it does not have to start intentionally. Sometimes a character can be tempted into betraying someone whose trust he or she earned legitimately.

Children can betray their parents, a lover can betray a lover, and a friend can betray a friend. However, it can be more complex than that. A king can betray his people, a husband can betray his wife's family, and a human can betray his entire race.

Virtually any sort of link between two creatures can eventually become the foundation for betrayal.

The underlined bit is about as close to a definition as there is- and it's still a little vague.

[Slipperychicken]

BoVD's Betrayal section:



The underlined bit is about as close to a definition as there is- and it's still a little vague.

The concept of Betrayal is extremely broad in real life, too. Wikipedia's language looks about right to me.


Wikipedia; Betrayal
Betrayal (or backstabbing) is the breaking or violation of a presumptive contract, trust, or confidence that produces moral and psychological conflict within a relationship amongst individuals, between organizations or between individuals and organizations. Often betrayal is the act of supporting a rival group, or it is a complete break from previously decided upon or presumed norms by one party from the others.

...Betrayal is the violation of an expressed or perceived trust by a person or persons with whom a person relies upon for some aspect of his or her life.


Again; quite vague, but a bit more useable. BoVD's definition is about as precise as most real-life ones.

[Slipperychicken]

While the Book of Vile Darkness may define Betrayal, I don't have that book. So I can't refute that.

However, the Paladin's Code does clearly mention Lying. But, I also doubt that every lie violates the code.


The Paladin's Code explicitly mentions lying. A Paladin only falls for a "gross violation", whatever that means to your group.



Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

[...] A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

[Zale]

The Paladin's Code explicitly mentions lying. A Paladin only falls for a "gross violation", whatever that means to your group.

That's why- oh. I meant that every little lie is not a gross violation of the code.

However, repeated lying does seem like it would be.

[Slipperychicken]

That's why- oh. I meant that every little lie is not a gross violation of the code.

However, repeated lying does seem like it would be.

I haven't ever seen "gross violation" defined in this context, and it looks like the intent is to give DMs room to interpret. So yeah, have fun with that.

[hamishspence]

I liked The Giant's take on it in War & XPs when two paladins lie to Miko, then say "It's not a gross violation- we can atone in the morning"

[Siosilvar]

I don't think any god of goodness no matter how severe expects rank suicide out of their followers. Going to the lower planes as soon as you can and trying to take on the hordes of demons is going to get someone pasted or worse.

I don't think anybody with an Int score of 1 or more would expect suicidal tendencies from the paragons of good, but a strict reading of RAW might. Which is why everything RAW says about alignment needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It's an acceptable starting place, though.

[mattie_p]

Look, let's all admit that if we total up everything that WotC says about good, evil, and the Paladin's code, there can be only one conclusion.

Paladins fall, everyone dies. End of story.

But seriously, without going into RL religion, I cannot find a single role model in history who could possibly qualify to remain a paladin. Please enlighten me if you find one, I'd be interested in reading about him/her.

[onthetown]

In my own opinion, the thing about Paladins is that -- even though putting the slave encampment guards to sleep with drow poison in order to rescue slaves achieves Good -- they shouldn't be afraid to stand up and shout the truth, to honour their code of conduct no matter what the face of danger may be. Sure, it's easier to put the guards to sleep, and certainly less dangerous, but a Paladin is immune to fear. They are, as another poster mentioned, Paragons of Good. A Paladin shouldn't need to take the "easy" way out of a situation just because the violation is only minor and it achieves Good -- they should be able to walk right up to the slave encampment guards and say, "I'm here to free these slaves. You may surrender and be brought back to town with me to face justice, or die standing against me."

They just really aren't meant to be subtle characters.

Edit: In the same vein, they shouldn't be afraid or need to worry about "little white lies" just to ease somebody's conscience. Truth is honour, and telling the truth usually has a better outcome than those little lies anyway.

[Zale]

That sounds like a wonderful way to die.

Well, at least he'll be a nice distraction. Maybe everyone else can do something useful while the slavers murder him.

[onthetown]

That sounds like a wonderful way to die.

Well, at least he'll be a nice distraction. Maybe everyone else can do something useful while the slavers murder him.

I didn't say it was practical. It's just how I see the class -- unafraid to stand for what they believe in and tell you exactly what that is and where you can go, no matter the consequences. As I said... I don't believe it's meant to be a subtle, "I think I can get away with this to evade my code of conduct and still somehow turn the situation Good in the end," class.

Alternatively, get the rogue to sneak attack the slavers while the paladin is going on his tirade. :smallamused:

[Flickerdart]

I didn't say it was practical. It's just how I see the class -- unafraid to stand for what they believe in and tell you exactly what that is and where you can go, no matter the consequences.
That sounds suspiciously like the description of a character and not a class.

[planswalker]

This whole discussion, IMAO, clearly and unambiguously indicates why I've never met a DM who didn't take the alignment system as a loose guideline at best and do their own thing with it.

[The Random NPC]

I didn't say it was practical. It's just how I see the class -- unafraid to stand for what they believe in and tell you exactly what that is and where you can go, no matter the consequences. As I said... I don't believe it's meant to be a subtle, "I think I can get away with this to evade my code of conduct and still somehow turn the situation Good in the end," class.

Alternatively, get the rogue to sneak attack the slavers while the paladin is going on his tirade. :smallamused:


That sounds suspiciously like the description of a character and not a class.

To be fair, the Grayguard PrC says pretty much the same thing.

[planswalker]

well, we are talking about a system written by committee...

It's not hard to find supplements which directly contradict each other. Read about half-dragons in the MM versus half-dragons in RotD.

[Kudaku]

To be fair, the Grayguard PrC says pretty much the same thing.
Problem is that the Grayguard class is a prestige class - you have to make it through at least two levels of paladin goodness without falling first.

[onthetown]

That sounds suspiciously like the description of a character and not a class.

When your class is that involved with being Good, one would assume that the character would follow the standards and ideals of the class and therefore being Good, but that may just be me.

[Flickerdart]

When your class is that involved with being Good, one would assume that the character would follow the standards and ideals of the class and therefore being Good, but that may just be me.
Being good and being reckless to the point of stupidity are two entirely different things.

[Slipperychicken]

In my own opinion, the thing about Paladins is that -- even though putting the slave encampment guards to sleep with drow poison in order to rescue slaves achieves Good -- they shouldn't be afraid to stand up and shout the truth, to honour their code of conduct no matter what the face of danger may be.

Using Drow Knockout-Poison is explicitly not evil. In fact, it's called out in BoED as such. I even put it on the list, right next to Poison Use :smallannoyed:

[Kudaku]

So one of the as-written most evil races in the game get a pass on their signature poison? that's interesting :smallbiggrin:. However, I'm guessing people use this example since poison use is specifically stated to go against the paladin code.

[Slipperychicken]

So one of the as-written most evil races in the game get a pass on their signature poison? that's interesting :smallbiggrin:. However, I'm guessing people use this example since poison use is specifically stated to go against the paladin code.

Because it's the ability damage which allegedly makes poison Evil. Drow poison deals no ability damage -> it doesn't cause undue suffering -> It's not Evil. The Paladins Code, however, does forbid poison altogether under "acting with honor", so I guess using Drow knockout poison is dishonorable, although not Evil.

[Thurbane]

Consorting with Fiends (pg 8)- Includes:
Allowing Fiends to exist

So Paladins have to hunt down every single Fiend they can or they are considered evil?
There's only one response to this:
http://i47.tinypic.com/2uqmatv.jpg

:biggrin: