Does a cleric with the evil domain neccessarily know they're evil? [Archive]

MonkeySage

2013-09-25, 12:46 AM

QuintonBeck

2013-09-25, 12:55 AM

I imagine clerics of evil deities in a couple of ways: You've got your crazy, wants to bring about the end of the world/other calamity cultists who embrace and wallow in evilness; then you've got the evil cleric who sees their power as something misunderstood or as a necessary force within the world. A Necromancer for instance might insist that undeath is a good thing for the people (free labor, no slavery) or a Cleric of death may view that domain as one that must be kept attended lest life outweigh death and overcrowd the world.
It all depends of course on what powers the Cleric chooses and the god the Cleric worships to help shape how a particular cleric could interpret their powers.

bekeleven

2013-09-25, 01:26 AM

Good and Evil can be capitalized because they are discrete, measurable concepts in D&D. A lot of homebrew campaign settings remove this for just this reason, which creates some issues with interaction (detect, smite, protection from, etc.)

Slipperychicken

2013-09-25, 01:30 AM

Absolutely. If he, or anyone else for that matter, casts Detect Evil (or a similar spell), they would ascertain that the Cleric is Evil.

Not only that, but the Cleric has Aura of Evil as a class feature, meaning that he would radiate a particularly strong aura (much stronger than a creature of his hit dice would normally).

Curmudgeon

2013-09-25, 02:53 AM

Absolutely. If he, or anyone else for that matter, casts Detect Evil (or a similar spell), they would ascertain that the Cleric is Evil.
Actually you can't tell that. You get the same result for all of the following:

Evil Cleric of a Neutral deity
Neutral Cleric of an Evil deity
Good Cleric with Necropolitan feat template

SiuiS

2013-09-25, 02:58 AM

In real life, morality is subjective, and people considered evil by others generally don't consider themselves as such. In D&D, even with objective morality, this seems to still be the case; most villains, even most fiends, don't seem to consider themselves to be evil, mostly just pragmatically embracing a social darwinist(cringing at poorly named philosophy) point of view. Or at least that has been my in game experience and interpretation...

So I'm wondering, first off, what are ya'll's thoughts on the matter?

And as for clerics with the evil domain, do you think that said cleric is necessarily aware of the fact they're evil? If not, how might this cleric rationalize their personal philosophy?

So far I'm running my own cleric, and I've actually been thinking about the best way to role play him: What I have is a snarky evangelist cleric worshipping the god of corruption and death, ferryman of styx(in this campaign called the sea of stars).

Yes, they would know. They may try to rationalize it, but 1) They are at best still clearly using Evil for their own ends, and 2) Clearly show up on any magical detection as Evil.

You can still work within that, though. You could view the evil as a taint that is on you, but not in you. You could view it as the necessary sacrifice for a greater good, your own soul sullied so that your cargo (those ferried) may stay pure.

There is a feat called Perceived Honor which has a sidebar for Perceived Alignment, that allows you to maintain mechanical advantage of an alignment so long as you act the part. I have an incarnate who is Lawful Neutral and uses the feat to present as Lawful Evil, and work for Hell, for example. The very nature of the feat allows more leeway as actions taken while "under cover" strengthen your cover, so long as you RP proper remorse and making a show while really holding back. So alignment is descriptive, more than prescriptive.

Cerlis

2013-09-25, 05:19 AM

the impression i get is basically most Clerics that serve Evil deities either:

A)Are using the Evil Deity to meet their own end. The relation ship between cleric and God is mutually beneficial. many of the clerics in Dragonlance where obviously just using their god given powers as a means to get what they wanted and the Gods didnt care as long as they served them.

B) Genuinely appreciate their deity through either love or fanaticism. Perhaps they dont know their deity as well as they'd like (The dark knights in Krynn loved Takhisiss, and knew she was evil, what they didnt know is she is a chaotic backstabbing fickle Godess) or have a strong personal tie to them (such as the God coming to them when it seemed they where all but abandoned)

C) Have circumstantial reasons to revere the diety (such as it being a racial god, or being a sailor who prays to the STorm godess) and see's the fact that the God is cruel and wicked at times as just the way things are. I mean Drow know that their Goddess is very evil, wicked and cruel, but so what?

Yahzi

2013-09-25, 05:27 AM

Good and Evil are kinda like team colors in D&D, from back when Evil was Team Monster and Good was the PCs. This explains why "good" guys could bust down doors, stab people in the face, and take their stuff - because those people were on the Wrong Team.

Even keeping good and evil as concepts, it still works. An evil cleric serves an objectively Evil deity. Why he does so can be anything from "Power is its own justification" to profit motive to a view that Good just mollycoddles the weak and oppresses the strong.

Just because you're Evil doesn't mean you're stupid, destructive, or even necessarily cruel. It does, however, mean you think the ends justify the means (think Magneto in the first X-Men movie).

Clistenes

2013-09-25, 06:45 AM

I can see evil cultures and religions as having a completely different view on what is Good/Right and Evil/Wrong, so that our concept of Good and Evil would be completely irrelevant to them.

Orcs, for example could have Detect Strength an Detect Meekness instead of Detect Good and Detect Evil spells, and Drows could use a "Detect Devotion to Lolth" instead of Detect Good and "Detect Lack of Devotion to Lolth" instead of Detect Evil.

Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil deities could deny their Clerics the Detect Good/Evil spells, since from their point of view Law=Right and Chaos=Wrong and that's all that matter to them.

But I think a Cleric shouldn't get the Evil Domain without acknowledging that both him/her as his/her deity are Evil. Taking the Evil Domain is kind of like saying "I'm Evil and proud of it".

Nocharim

2013-09-25, 07:09 AM

A Necromancer for instance might insist that undeath is a good thing for the people (free labor, no slavery)

As long as the deceased have given consent for this particular use of their earthly remains after their passing its all fine. It also lessens the need for living fighters along with lessened food consumption so people don't starve.

Remember that its not magic that has an alignment, its the people who use it.

bekeleven

2013-09-25, 07:22 AM

Remember that its not magic that has an alignment, its the people who use it.

Although this makes for a very interesting variant, it's straight false in stock.

Nocharim

2013-09-25, 07:41 AM

Although this makes for a very interesting variant, it's straight false in stock.

Is a hammer evil by default if it is used to kill an innocent?

Lord Haart

2013-09-25, 07:41 AM

Orcs, for example could have Detect Strength an Detect Meekness instead of Detect Good and Detect Evil spellsNow that's a new and very fun concept that i totally dig. Can i use it sometime, sir?

As long as the deceased have given consent for this particular use of their earthly remains after their passing its all fine. It also lessens the need for living fighters along with lessened food consumption so people don't starve.

Remember that its not magic that has an alignment, its the people who use it.This is a quite common, pretty adequate point of view that has but two problems. First, the "have given consent" part has nothing to do with good-evil axis in its D&D meaning and everything to do with law-chaos one; a guy who argues that owner's consent is no more important in the matters of using the body for common good than some long-dead noble's dying wish to have nobody ever live on his lands would be important when those lands could save a country from overpopulation, would be certainly non-lawful but not necessarily non-good (Chaotic Good as usually portrayed is all about "Take what i need to do good things, not what i'm allowed to take"). And second, unfortunately more relevant here, is that, no matter how many people did that standpoint, it plain doesn't work in D&D proper; you animate dead, no matter the "whats", "ifs" and "buts", several times in a row, you get your alighment changed to Evil for casting [Evil] spell, you go to hell.

Is a hammer evil by default if it is used to kill an innocent?No, although the act of killing an innocent is. However, saving an innocent by using a pain-killer drug is an evil (and good) act, since drugs are [Evil]. Now if you use holy drugs, you get to be double-good.

Nocharim

2013-09-25, 07:49 AM

This is a quite common, pretty adequate point of view that has but two problems. First, the "have given consent" part has nothing to do with good-evil axis in its D&D meaning and everything to do with law-chaos one;

It does when animating the dead is equated with slavery. It is also polite.

And second, unfortunately more relevant here, is that, no matter how many people did that standpoint, it plain doesn't work in D&D proper; you animate dead, no matter the "whats", "ifs" and "buts", several times in a row, you get your alighment changed to Evil for casting [Evil] spell, you go to hell.

And that is one of the reasons the alignment system in this game is silly and doesn't really work that well.

Jeff the Green

2013-09-25, 08:07 AM

Actually you can't tell that. You get the same result for all of the following:

Evil Cleric of a Neutral deity
Neutral Cleric of an Evil deity
Good Cleric with Necropolitan feat

Also, detect evil is a cone and so doesn't include you in it.

I think all but the most insane would agree that they are Evil but most would disagree that they're evil. They'd say, yeah, they're using evil means but their ends are good enough to justify them, or they'd disagree completely with the Good-Evil dichotomy as presented in D&D cosmology.

Remember that for most people, the biggest dangers aren't evil things, they're neutral things. Storms, famines, and wild animals (and house cats) certainly kill more people than tyrants do, so the Evil king that protects his subjects from enemies, etc. and ensures infrastructure that mitigates the effects of natural disasters remains intact but also demands his droit du seigneur and occasionally tortures a peasant because they insulted him is almost certainly preferable to chaos, no matter how Good that chaos is.

Psyren

2013-09-25, 08:16 AM

I would say the clerics know how those feckless, so-called "Good" gods choose to label them, and that those gods currently hold the reins of the universe, so that the aura of their enemies is labelled "Evil" by those who are weak and concerned with foolish concepts like "fairness." Who would rather lose or fail than turn to obviously effective tactics like enslavement and necromancy. And for the less evil among them, they're probably aware that they're playing a dangerous game by cooperating with fiends and murderers and such, but that fortune favors the bold and they are the underdogs so they need every advantage they can get, especially advantages the other side snubs.

So in short, I would say the clerics are aware of the label, but that's all they really see it as - a construct hung on them by the tyranny of Good. Some ignore it, some embrace it, but none really take issue with it or deny it.

Lord Vukodlak

2013-09-25, 01:31 PM

So in short, I would say the clerics are aware of the label, but that's all they really see it as - a construct hung on them by the tyranny of Good. Some ignore it, some embrace it, but none really take issue with it or deny it.

My evil cleric basically makes this argument he claims there is nothing bad about being evil. When the party was hired by a much of Dwarves to defend their mine they worried because my cleric was evil.

So I argued that evil mercenaries were far superior to so called "do-gooders" The so called good guys would turn on them the moment they offended their delicate sensibilities. "Did you acquire this mine from someone else... did you dig into another creatures home."

We have no reason to betray them so long as they pay, and we can't afford to turn on our clients otherwise word gets around and suddenly no one will hire us. The basic speech being you can trust us to do whats in our own best interest, but good guys will turn on you after a fifteen second sob story.

Psyren

2013-09-25, 02:00 PM

It's basically the Tarquin approach - reject the entire alignment framework. Evil is just another word, and usually one used by the guys on the losing side to smear the guys who are kicking their asses.

Joe the Rat

2013-09-25, 02:24 PM

This is why I've been looking for an alternate set of labels - something that doesn't have as strong of "Right" and "Wrong" implications in the name itself. Something that would let you explore themes from the deep end of the alignment pool without using labels that suggest mustache twirling and damsel distressing.

Although this makes for a very interesting variant, it's straight false in stock.
Is a hammer evil by default if it is used to kill an innocent?
No, but a hammer with the [Evil] descriptor would be. Animate Dead is Evil because it says so in it's descriptior line (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm). Setting aside the RAW, it's an interesting philosophical question: Is there a right time or a right reason for using an "icky" spell? Something Rotten in Kislev played with this - using the dead to defend the living from things far worse than the walking dead.

Jeff the Green

2013-09-25, 03:01 PM

This is why I've been looking for an alternate set of labels - something that doesn't have as strong of "Right" and "Wrong" implications in the name itself. Something that would let you explore themes from the deep end of the alignment pool without using labels that suggest mustache twirling and damsel distressing.

'Honor' is a decent one for some cultures.

In my campaign setting I use the default alignment system turned up to 11 (impoverished virgins are more Good than rich sluts; BDSM, drugs, and cackling are Evil), but point out repeatedly that basically only celestials and fiends (and people who don't quite know what the universe thinks is Good and Evil) think Good=good and Evil=evil. Everyone else thinks of cosmic Good and Evil as not significantly different from fire, water, earth, and air (and likewise positive and negative energy), and defines good and evil based on their culture's values.

Slipperychicken

2013-09-25, 03:45 PM

Actually you can't tell that. You get the same result for all of the following:

Evil Cleric of a Neutral deity
Neutral Cleric of an Evil deity
Good Cleric with Necropolitan feat

Well, you can check the deity bit pretty easily; IIRC you can only get the Evil domain from a god with Evil in his portfolio. I don't think there any Neutral gods who grant the Evil domain.

Is there a necropolitan feat? Or do you mean tomb-tainted soul?

hamishspence

2013-09-25, 04:35 PM

The only example I can think of in which a deity without an alignment, grants the domain for that alignment- is the goblinoid deity Maglubiyet.

NE: but he grants the Chaos domain.

Clistenes

2013-09-25, 05:24 PM

Now that's a new and very fun concept that i totally dig. Can i use it sometime, sir?

Go on. I would like it to stick and become popular. As I said, every culture and religion should have Detect spells fitting their own set of values.

If you think about it, Detect Evil/Good spells would be quite useless for an orc. An orc shaman sees a human warrior, casts a Detect (Alignment) spell and then...what? If he's Good he probably kills orcs to punish them for their murders and looting, but if he's Evil, he probably kills orcs because he hates non-humans, or to steal their stuff or just for the lulz.

Same goes for drows, mindflayers, hobgoblins...etc. Both Good and Evil creatures kill them. Good creatures kill drows and mindflayers when possible because drows and mindflayers are evil, and evil creatures kill drows and mindflayers when they can because of many different reasons.

hamishspence

2013-09-25, 05:28 PM

I think all but the most insane would agree that they are Evil but most would disagree that they're evil. They'd say, yeah, they're using evil means but their ends are good enough to justify them, or they'd disagree completely with the Good-Evil dichotomy as presented in D&D cosmology.

Tome of Magic had a Blackguard ex-paladin who, while aware he's lost his paladin powers- thinks it's a test of faith by his deity- and still believes he's Good and will regain his powers when the test is over. His name was Michael Ambrose.

It's surprising just how deluded a D&D character can be.

Shining Wrath

2013-09-25, 06:00 PM

Curmudgeon

2013-09-25, 06:02 PM

Is there a necropolitan feat?
No, that's an error; I meant the Necropolitan template. (I've been working on feat selections for a new character, and had feats on my mind.)

Harrow

2013-09-25, 06:57 PM

I think that in a Universe where Gods (or their agents) walk among people, distribute miraculous powers to their clergy, and so on, that it would be (almost) universally agreed that Good Aligned = "good", Evil aligned = "evil". The exceptions would be that some people might be either really crazy, or really dumb, or really smart low wisdom types that are capable of lying to themselves in a convincing manner.

Even if the evil cleric hasn't kicked a puppy recently, they will know what their deity's representatives are like once they reach a sufficiently high level to start summoning help. It's going to take a real effort of will to summon a Balor or Pit Fiend, watch them deal with your enemies in the manner creatures of that sort resort to, and not realize "hey, that was pretty non-nice", and not-nice in a different way than a Solar. Even a Fiendish Rat is going to give off a decidedly different vibe than a Celestial Sloth.

But then there's the Malconvoker, a summoner who pays Evil Unto Evil. They specialize in summoning and calling evil outsiders under the principle that all damage done will be to the side of Evil : If your opponents fall, then Good has Triumphed and if your allies fall, then Good has lost no forces. The class quote is a little dark too:

"Take him my slaves! Drag his soul back to your dark masters!"-Argyll Te'Shea, servant of Pelor and malconvoker

But, it requires non-evil. Especially weird when compared with the Fiendbinder from Tome of Magic which is based around, well, binding fiends, and requires non-good on the assumption that slavery, even of beings literally made out of evil, still isn't ok. Yay inconsistencies :smallsigh:
But then, who pays attention to alignment restrictions on classes?

Jeff the Green

2013-09-25, 08:18 PM

But then there's the Malconvoker, a summoner who pays Evil Unto Evil.

Or any Good arcane caster, spirit shaman (though thats a bit limited in ability to summon evil things) or archivist. They can summon whatever they want to to serve the cause of Good.

Yuki Akuma

2013-09-25, 08:43 PM

Evil is an objective metaphysical force in D&D land. It really has nothing to do with mortal morality.

A cleric of an Evil deity might know he's Evil, but might not consider himself a bad person.

Curmudgeon

2013-09-25, 11:06 PM

A cleric of an Evil deity might know he's Evil, but might not consider himself a bad person.
Of course, the default for adventurers is that they're all bad guys: they spend most of their time going around killing people and taking their stuff. :smallwink:

hamishspence

2013-09-26, 06:33 AM

Of course, the default for adventurers is that they're all bad guys: they spend most of their time going around killing people and taking their stuff. :smallwink:
Or at the very least, there's hints that the bad guy ones are the most common: the DMG random tables for single-classed (PC classes from PHB) NPCs with the elite array, have the proportions be 50% Evil, 30% Neutral, 20% Good.

Which may be circumstantial evidence in favour of the notion that adventurers are most likely to be Evil on average.

While monstrous adventurers skew the demographic somewhat, it isn't by much.

I did a breakdown of the alignment probabilities for the individual PC races (standard versions of each): and they are as follows:

Humans: 19.18% Good, 32.85% Neutral, 47.96% Evil
Lightfoot Halflings: 20.70% Good, 38.08% Neutral, 41.23% Evil
Half-Elves: 14.73% Good, 31.79% Neutral, 53.48% Evil
Half-Orcs: 10.99% Good, 34.79% Neutral, 54.22% Evil
Hill Dwarves: 51.32% Good, 43.10% Neutral, 5.58% Evil
High Elves: 46.89% Good, 36.14% Neutral, 16.98% Evil

Gnomes didn't appear at all on the Evil NPCs table- so I figured that wouldn't be entirely reliable given that quite a few adventure modules with evil gnomes exist.

Psyren

2013-09-26, 07:59 AM

Or at the very least, there's hints that the bad guy ones are the most common: the DMG random tables for single-classed (PC classes from PHB) NPCs with the elite array, have the proportions be 50% Evil, 30% Neutral, 20% Good.

Which may be circumstantial evidence in favour of the notion that adventurers are most likely to be Evil on average.

Doesnt' that just mean that PC-classed NPCs that the real PCs run into are are more likely to be evil? i.e. villains in a game rather than a living, breathing world.

I highly doubt half of everybody you meet being evil is a realistic benchmark for any setting.

hamishspence

2013-09-26, 10:47 AM

I highly doubt half of everybody you meet being evil is a realistic benchmark for any setting.

Not everybody- just the elite people with PC classes.

Let us look at other demographics.

Commoners, in Eberron:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a

In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer.

Community power centres:
DMG (p136):
41% Good, 23% Neutral, 36% Evil

Urban center (small city or larger) community alignment (this is the overall outlook of the community taken as a whole).
Cityscape (p8)
36% Good, 33% Neutral, 31% Evil

Seto

2013-09-26, 04:15 PM

@ OP : I think in most cases, if you've picked the "Evil" domain, you know that you're Evil, and evil (but then again, you'll probably think "evil"'s just a word). But not necessarily. You still can be deluded. Like : "ah, thinks I'm on his side, when really I'm cheating him of his evil, evil power to help realize a greater good !"

In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer.

Actually, besides any statistic take on things, I think there are two possible ways to look at things. Your approach depends on how you answer the question : "When you're faced with a moral decision, do Neutral acts exist ?".
I'll explain. Let's imagine your character is witnessing someone being bullied. You can say one of two things.
First way of looking at it : Either he helps the poor bastard and this is a Good act, or he doesn't and it's Evil (that's basically the paladin's example from BoED when defining what is a good act and what is an evil act). Second way of looking at it : Either he helps out and it's Good, or he joins in on the bullying/enjoys watching it and it's Evil, OR he just walks away from it and it's Neutral.
In other words, do Good and Evil actually [I]mean something, as in "your act is committed enough not to be Neutral, it is positively Good or Evil", or don't they ? (as in "every moral stand you take is either Good or Evil, and not wanting to take a moral stand is being selfish and Evil")

If they don't, a Neutral character is someone whose Good and Evil acts are equally balanced. And then you'd have indeed about 30-35% of each alignment in an average human city.
If they do (that's my personal opinion), you'll have about 60% Neutral, 25% Good and 15% Evil commoners (very roughly). Indeed, people are generally not committed enough to be really considered aligned : for example, you can have a good heart and take pity in someone dying in battle, and be Neutral : an actively Good character would take pains to help and die in their place if necessary. As for the actively Evil, they're even less common (I mean, when you see a beating on the street and someone intervenes, chances are it is to help the guy who's being beaten and not the guys who are beating him !)

hamishspence

2013-09-26, 04:23 PM

Another discussion of what it takes to be Good or Evil was in Quintessential Paladin II: third party, but still thought-provoking:

Low Grade Evil Everywhere
In some campaigns, the common population is split roughly evenly among the various alignments - the kindly old grandmother who gives boiled sweets to children is Neutral Good and that charming rake down the pub is Chaotic Neutral. Similarly the thug lurking in the alleyway is Chaotic Evil, while the grasping landlord who throws granny out on the street because she's a copper behind on the rent is Lawful Evil.

In such a campaign up to a third of the population will detect as Evil to the paladin. This low grade Evil is a fact of life, and is not something the paladin can defeat. Certainly he should not draw his greatsword and chop the landlord in twain just because he has a mildly tainted aura. It might be appropriate for the paladin to use Diplomacy (or Intimidation) to steer the landlord toward the path of good but stronger action is not warranted.

In such a campaign detect evil cannot be used to infallibly detect villainy, as many people are a little bit evil. if he casts detect evil on a crowded street, about a third of the population will detect as faintly evil.

Evil As A Choice
A similar campaign set-up posits that most people are some variety of Neutral. The old granny might do good by being kind to people, but this is a far cry from capital-G Good, which implies a level of dedication, fervour and sacrifice which she does not possess. If on the other hand our granny brewed alchemical healing potions into those boiled sweets or took in and sheltered orphans and strays off the street, then she might qualify as truly Good.

Similarly, minor acts of cruelty and malice are not truly Evil on the cosmic scale. Our greedy and grasping landlord might be nasty and mean, but sending the bailiffs round to throw granny out might not qualify as Evil (although if granny is being thrown out into a chill winter or torrential storm, then that is tantamount to murder and would be Evil). In such a campaign, only significant acts of good or evil can tip a character from Neutrality to being truly Good or Evil.

if a paladin in this campaign uses detect evil on a crowded street, he will usually detect nothing, as true evil is rare. Anyone who detects as Evil, even faintly Evil, is probably a criminal, a terrible and wilful sinner, or both. Still, the paladin is not obligated to take action - in this campaign, detecting that someone is Evil is a warning, not a call to arms. The paladin should probably investigate this person and see if they pose a danger to the common folk, but he cannot automatically assume that this particular Evil person deserves to be dealt with immediately.

Eberron seems to go with the first example- possibly with "evil thoughts" (like getting enjoyment from witnessing suffering) weighing a bit more- since the example focuses more on action- causing suffering.

Seto

2013-09-26, 05:06 PM

Hmmm, I see. Actually, both could be held as true. As a philosopher-wannabe, I have done quite a bit of thinking about the alignment system (I've decided to take what we are given and see what we can actually make of it, rather than saying "it sucks" - of course it sucks, compared to real life, but it's a fun concept to work with in a game). I think that it should be thought of as a two-dimensional figure (not only drawing the moral axis and the ethical axis as crossing in the middle, but extending them to the sides as well, in order to have a geometrical square) : rather than a line with every alignment, you'd have a square with LG-CG-CE-LE at the angles, NG-CN-NE-LN in the middle of the sides, and N right in the middle (you should link points and have four lines crossing inside your square, so you're left with nine squares within a square, effectively representing all nine alignments). That way your character can be pictured as a point, say, higher and more to the right than the center N : she'd be N, but more inclined towards Good and Chaos than Evil or Law. (Arbitrarily, I have put Law left, Chaos right, Good up and Evil down)
And with that in mind, I think that the extremes (the angles, the central points and the lines within the figure) are out of human reach. It's just because humans (and PC races in general, to a lesser extent) are so adaptable : they have Good, Chaos, Evil, Law and Neutrality in them. Even the most tyrannical tyrant will never ever be as Evil or Lawful as a Devil, nor will the mightiest champion of Good will be as exalted as a Celestial. PCs are never pure Good or Law, etc. : if they were, they would transcend human condition and become outsiders or Gods (some do).

So. As I was saying, both could be true. In the sense that being an Evil human is not the same thing as being an Evil Fiend : alignments are not commeasurable. Or to be more precise, they are, but the Fiend's range of Evil (if you draw within the Evil squares of my figure a zone where Fiends' alignments are) is not the same as the human range of Evil (humans never touch the lower side of the square). An exceptionally nice Fiend (but are there any ? depends on your conception of the Planes) could be as Evil as a very Evil human, but an exceptionally Evil Fiend will never be in the same category as even the most evil human. And yet their alignments are the same. So... In our example, what Evil would the Paladin's spell detect ? Fiend-Evil or I'm-a-teenager-in-a-bad-mood-Evil ? I guess it starts somewhere between the two. In my figure, we could determine that once you're South enough from the center, your taint is strong enough so that it is detected. Are mean humans Evil ? Yes, mostly. Chaotic, Neutral, Lawful Evil. But not enough so that they will be indicated as Evil on the Paladin's radar. You start detecting as soon as Evil becomes Vile (middle from the "Evil" space in the figure), or as soon as Good becomes Exalted, or just before - arbitrarily, up to the DM. Or, you could say that the spell specifies if the taint is strong or mild.
I'm not saying everyone should do it that way - it is after all a very personal take on things -, but I'm saying that it's interesting and that's probably how I'd do it as a DM :)

hamishspence

2013-09-26, 05:14 PM

Fiends have become non-Evil without actually ceasing to be Fiends:

The Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a)

and the rules in MM do support the notion that it is possible for a being with an alignment subtype to have an alignment that does not match it.

Older D&D editions allowed Detect Evil to detect primarily Evil intentions- thus, evil aligned mortals did not ping it unless they were actively planning to do something at that moment- or were exceptionally Evil (or clerics of Evil deities).

However- I like the notion of a character such as a paladin having to tolerate the presence of people they know to be evil aligned- having to have just cause to act, beyond just knowledge of an alignment.

That's why the Eberron stuff appeals to me.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041115a
"Why do you hurt your fellow citizens?"

The innkeeper froze. "What?"

"I can see the greed swirling in your soul," Handor said. "Do you water down your ale? Charge three crowns when the price is two? Or worse?"

"I don't know what you're talking about," the man stammered. His eyes flickered down to Handor's blade.

"I am a paladin of the Silver Flame. I am sworn to fight evil in all its forms. My sword is for the fiends and monsters that deserve neither reason nor mercy. But you are no monster, and you can still find redemption." Handor put his hand on the hosteller's shoulder. "Consider your actions. Think about those you have harmed. Seek out a minister and cleanse your soul. The true darkness is rising, and if we are to survive we must all find a path to the light. If you cannot . . . then perhaps you are a monster, after all."

and:

In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer. The sword is no answer here; the paladin is charged to protect these people. Oratory, virtue, and inspiration are the weapons of the paladin -- though intimidation may have its place.

JusticeZero

2013-09-26, 06:36 PM

They could also be resigned to being Evil.

All of the gods are brothers and sisters, and they all serve their roles. I have been called to serve my community by interpreting the will of Nox, God of sickness, poison, and decay. I enjoy the company of my fellow clergy of the other gods of the pantheon, despite them being called to more beloved Gods who are the enemies of my Rotten Lord. We all are mere pawns in the service of the Gods.

When Farmer Jonno down the way found blight in his granary, this was the will of Nox; I aided him in securing his other granaries, then sacrificed the rest of the spoiled grain to the Rotten Lord. Without me, Nox would not be honored properly, and might rage out of control. I am.. necessary.

When the orcish army threatened the village last month, the village called upon my services; I descended in the burning midday with a skeletal army of blighted cattle, unleashed the bile of the Rotten Lord upon their water and food stores, and cursed them with sickness and disease. They did not appease the Rotten Lord as my town does, and their misery pleased the Rotten One. In return, these granaries have been particularly free from rats this month, thanks to my service to Nox.

I know that my soul's ultimate reward for my service will be to be pulled into the Abyss to serve at the feet of the Rotten Lord. My soul was marked from birth, and I accept my burden.

Jeff the Green

2013-09-26, 08:49 PM

kaminiwa

2013-09-26, 09:01 PM

I have usually done Evil as being "Necessary Evil" and "The Ends Justify The Means" thinking (this also leads to a campaign where evil PCs are entirely welcome).

Sure, sacrificing people to Nerull is evil, but it got us the information we needed to stop the Great Red Dragon, and he would have killed far MORE people, so... it's just math, right? Kill a few, save a lot.

hamishspence

2013-09-27, 01:21 AM

Though, according to BoVD, allowing a fiend to exist is an evil act, so the moment Eludicea has a chance to kill herself and fails to do so she falls. :smallannoyed:

I figure the writers decided that particular BoVD line was silly and dumped it.

TuggyNE

2013-09-27, 03:03 AM

And with that in mind, I think that the extremes (the angles, the central points and the lines within the figure) are out of human reach. It's just because humans (and PC races in general, to a lesser extent) are so adaptable : they have Good, Chaos, Evil, Law and Neutrality in them. Even the most tyrannical tyrant will never ever be as Evil or Lawful as a Devil, nor will the mightiest champion of Good will be as exalted as a Celestial. PCs are never pure Good or Law, etc. : if they were, they would transcend human condition and become outsiders or Gods (some do).

To express this, 3.5 does two things: it gives Outsiders an unusually strong alignment aura (unfortunately, no stronger for their level than a devout Cleric or Paladin, presumably because these are supernaturally charged with the alignment aura of their patron) and it assigns appropriate alignment subtypes, which very seldom change, and are detected even if alignment changes. It might be useful to add subtype detection to the detect <alignment> spells, actually.

On topic, I'd agree with an earlier poster that possessing the Evil domain is pretty much only possible if you're consciously devoting yourself to it, even beyond the norm of other evil Clerics. Similarly, many Clerics heal, but those with the Healing domain make a deliberate and significant choice to emphasize that aspect of their doctrine and practice.

Talothorn

2013-09-27, 06:43 AM

On topic, I'd agree with an earlier poster that possessing the Evil domain is pretty much only possible if you're consciously devoting yourself to it, even beyond the norm of other evil Clerics. Similarly, many Clerics heal, but those with the Healing domain make a deliberate and significant choice to emphasize that aspect of their doctrine and practice.

I would argue that this is only true in meta game. A fighter does not know the numeric value of his base attack bonus or fortitude saves, or even of the existence of such things. A rogue may know he is smooth and persuasive, but he has no concept of skill ranks or charisma modifiers. A cleric knows what deity he serves, but isn't aware that there are such thing as specific domain powers, or even domains.
"Through the power of my deity, I can perform feats of great strength" (strength domain)
Sure, okay.
"My deity has blessed me with a numeric bonus to my caster level, and I selected, in his grace, a feat which increases the saving throw difficulty classes for spells with certain descriptors based on my wisdom modifier and class level. This stacks with class features from that two level dip into that prestige class."
No. Players know this stuff. Not characters.

If the characters knew this stuff, wouldn't they get mad at the players for making suboptimal choices? "

"Dang, Bob. You're a gnomish monk? What was your player thinking?"

Pickford

2013-09-27, 12:48 PM

Though, according to BoVD, allowing a fiend to exist is an evil act, so the moment Eludicea has a chance to kill herself and fails to do so she falls. :smallannoyed:

And according to BoED (which also has the advantage of postdating BoVD) Mercy is a good. Therefore fiends may be suffered to live if they are trying to be good.

(Or if this still doesn't sit well with you: Rule 0 :D)

kaminiwa

2013-09-27, 01:42 PM

I would argue that this is only true in meta game. A fighter does not know the numeric value of his base attack bonus or fortitude saves, or even of the existence of such things. A rogue may know he is smooth and persuasive, but he has no concept of skill ranks or charisma modifiers. A cleric knows what deity he serves, but isn't aware that there are such thing as specific domain powers, or even domains.
"Through the power of my deity, I can perform feats of great strength" (strength domain)
Sure, okay.
"My deity has blessed me with a numeric bonus to my caster level, and I selected, in his grace, a feat which increases the saving throw difficulty classes for spells with certain descriptors based on my wisdom modifier and class level. This stacks with class features from that two level dip into that prestige class."
No. Players know this stuff. Not characters.

If the characters knew this stuff, wouldn't they get mad at the players for making suboptimal choices? "

"Dang, Bob. You're a gnomish monk? What was your player thinking?"

At the same time, I've always found it equally absurd to assume no knowledge. The Fighter knows he has a higher chance of hitting than the Wizard. It's well known that Clerics of certain gods are often blessed with Strength or Healing, while other gods are blessed with powers of Death and Madness.

Even in the real world, if you're 40, and working a minimum wage job, people are going to assume life wasn't very kind to you. People make fun of Liberal Arts majors in college all the time - "Why would you waste your time on THAT?"

I don't see anything wrong with people going "A gnome *monk*? What in the world made you want to do *that*? I mean, you're so... um... short..." Equally, it's probably well-known that Half-Orcs are less competent as both Wizards and Sorcerers, but do okay as Clerics.

And given the existence of Charisma enhancing items, the basic idea of attributes and skills has to exist - the rogue is probably aware of whether he's good with people because of a high charisma, high Diplomacy, or both, even if he couldn't say "I have 3 ranks more than the fighter" :)

I'd say feats represent specific training - Whirlwind Attack and a lot of Metamagic feats are going to be blindingly obvious. I'd even expect students to complain about being taught "useless prerequisite feats" when they're just hear to learn that awesome Whirlwind technique they saw once, and don't understand why they have to spend hours practicing Dodging :) ("To master the wind, you must become one with the wind, learn to move as the wind" is, of course, the explanation)

In short, while they might not use the same terms, one kinda has to assume that the people of the world ARE aware of some of the mechanics :)

(I'm personally adamant in my campaigns about "Sword +1" being an actual in-character term, because I like magic being weirdly integer-based like that, and it fits in with the concept of Spell Valences, so it's not *really* that weird :))

PersonMan

2013-09-27, 03:38 PM

(I'm personally adamant in my campaigns about "Sword +1" being an actual in-character term, because I like magic being weirdly integer-based like that, and it fits in with the concept of Spell Valences, so it's not *really* that weird :))

The thing is, "weirdly integer-based" would probably mean something more like

Blade of Enhanced Strikes I
Blade of Enhanced Strikes II
etc.

Blade of Enhanced Strikes I with Tier I Flame Enhancement

not "Sword +1". +1 doesn't mean anything to them. +1 to what? The number of swords you have? What are you adding to? What are you adding?

If I have magic shoes that make me go faster, I'll call them something like Boots of Speed or whatever, maybe put them in tiers, but not "Boots of +3". It's the same with swords - unless you're aware of there being something a sword's magic adds to, why call it "+1"?

Harrow

2013-09-27, 03:43 PM

And according to BoED (which also has the advantage of postdating BoVD) Mercy is a good. Therefore fiends may be suffered to live if they are trying to be good.

(Or if this still doesn't sit well with you: Rule 0 :D)

This depends on grouping. If you leave "mercifully allowed repentant fiend to live" and "didn't kill fiend when an opportunity was presented" as two separate acts, one good and one evil, that's still one evil act and the paladin falls. However, if you say that both of those actions are in fact one single action and average it out, the paladin fiend is fine.

Alternatively, you could say that good and evil are always circumstantial and only make paladins fall for doing things are aren't just questionable but obviously un-good. Or, better yet, ignore alignment restrictions and the paladin's code of honor.

TuggyNE

2013-09-27, 06:46 PM

Talothorn

2013-09-27, 07:57 PM

The fighter knows he has trained, probably for years, to be skilled with various weapons. He knows he is more skilled than someone without such training. He knows that he chose to focus on a specific weapon, making him more skilled with that weapon than most. He doesn't know that he has a 5% better chance to hit because he focused in a certain weapon.

Or "through the power of my deity, I can blast and sicken do-gooders vile and blasphemous nonbelievers with un holy darkness, and cast spells that suit his dark ends righteous and infallible plan more strongly

Fixed that for you. Seriously.

These rival faiths may label us as evil, but it is they who are tainted by the lies of Pelor, "the Burning Hate". Only through the cleansing of death may their sins be purged. So it is written in the book of the Raven Queen, and by her grace are we worthy to carry out her will.