Evil in civil society, and murderhobo paladins

[Mastikator]

From the conversations on this board I've come to the understanding that many people here think a paladin is justified in killing/subduing an evil person, even if the evil person isn't attacking the paladin. Now if you disagree with that assertion then this question isn't for you, I can't stop you from answering though.

However, lets assume that paladins don't have the license to kill with impunity and lets assume "being evil" isn't itself a punishable crime.
Now a paladin walks into a shop of some kind, the shop owner dings as evil on the paladin's evil-radar. But the shop owner is a respected member of society as far as you know. He's not hurting anyone that you know of.
What does the paladin do? Obviously he can't trade with the shop owner, since that's associating with evil. And he can't arrest him, since he hasn't committed any crime, and he doesn't have the legal right to attack him.
Does he just let it go? What does he do?

[Socksy]

Why would the paladin be using Detect Evil on a random-
Oh, yeah. PC.

If I was playing the paladin, I'd probably offer to help him onto the good and righteous path, or something like that. Paladins have Diplomacy and Charisma, right?

If it didn't work, I would see how strongly he was reading as on my Detect Evil. If he's some sort of fiend or undead or powerful unholy something-or-other, he's getting sent back to wherever he came from, probably via greatsword. If he's just some regular dude trying to make a living, why bother him?

[geeky_monkey]

Sounds like a perfect plot hook for me.

The paladin will want to investigate why a seemingly honest shopkeeper is evil. Is he a murderer? A cultist? In league with evil forces? Or just an innocent who's been possessed (perhaps unknowingly)?

Any number of adventures could be set off by this.

[Segev]

Yep. This would be cause for the Paladin to be suspicious of him and to start asking around, doing some investigation, finding out what makes him evil. Then seeking to put a stop to it. Preferably by gathering evidence and going to the lawful authorities, and offering his services to help if they would need them.

If, in the course of his investigations, he catches the guy in the act and needs to intervene to prevent harm to another, then he becomes justified in using violence to stop the man.

[aberratio ictus]

From the conversations on this board I've come to the understanding that many people here think a paladin is justified in killing/subduing an evil person, even if the evil person isn't attacking the paladin.

You've not read many conversations on this boards, have you?

[Socksy]

You've not read many conversations on this boards, have you?

Paladins, in my experience, tend to fall either into that category or into "LEEEEEEEEEEEEEROY JEEEEEENKIIIIIIIIIIINS!"

[aberratio ictus]

Of course, people have widely varying experiences.

Still, it is widely agreed on this boards that the "indiscriminately slaughter everybody who pings evil" is one of the worst ways to play a paladin.

[Delwugor]

Well first a Paladin shouldn't have the right to Detect Evil on everyone he meets. He should have a reason, otherwise his actions violate social trust which is important in a working society.

But assuming he had reason, without the shop owner doing anything, the most he could do is boycott the shop and state to others why they should not go there. Depending on circumstances he might be justified in searching deeper into the shop owners past and present dealings.

Being a Paladin does not give carte blanche for a character to start an Inquisition. How many people think the Spanish Inquisition was a good thing?
Pathfinder actually has the Inquisitor class where that type of action would be more justified.

[Segev]

Nah. Detect Evil for a paladin is no different than a Bard sizing somebody up to see what their likes and dislikes are in order to present himself well. It's just another sense. It's not like it's invasive. I imagine we all, to some extent, try to ask ourselves, "is this person I'm meeting now a good person whom I can therefore trust?" as we get that first impression. The paladin just has one more sense with which to read people.

Think of it like this: You ever hear of a dog, cat, or child who likes everybody, to the point that, if they don't like somebody upon first meeting them, it's a warning sign? Said animal or kid is often portrayed as having a special insight into the true nature of a person. (In reality, it's probably just a well-developed pattern recognition of outward behaviors to private behaviors; some of us are better at that than others, and when we can't explain what the pattern we picked up on was, we call it 'intuition.')

The paladin is like that. He detects (sufficient) evil. So if a paladin meets your fiancée and suddenly has an obvious discomfort around her or dislike of her, you should perhaps wonder why.

[Artemicion]

Nah. Detect Evil for a paladin is no different than a Bard sizing somebody up to see what their likes and dislikes are in order to present himself well. It's just another sense. It's not like it's invasive. I imagine we all, to some extent, try to ask ourselves, "is this person I'm meeting now a good person whom I can therefore trust?" as we get that first impression. The paladin just has one more sense with which to read people.

Hum I guess this really depends what game you are playing. In Dnd 3.0 and 3.5, the paladin detects evil as the spell like ability. Which means he must first cast the spell (which is pretty obvious). On the first round he knows if yes or no there is an evil aura within range, second round how many auras, third where they are.

If a paladin came into my shop, cast the obvious paladin spell and stared at me for 20 seconds, I would this find very rude, whether I am evil or not.

[Red Fel]

I seem to recall that several texts, in both Pathfinder and 3.5 (although I don't remember specific sources, forgive me), distinguish between "everyday Evil" like you find in roughly a third of all citizens, and "major Evil" like you find in cultists, demons, dragons and the living impaired.

It's understood that there are people who are "bad." They're not nice, they cheat on their taxes, they kick puppies, they foreclose homes in the middle of winter. They're jerks. But they're not murderers. They're not trying to ruin the government or become deities or raise an unholy army or teach a band of animated chairs to sing Rick Astley songs. They're everyday Evil, not major Evil.

And, in essence, everyday Evil doesn't count. The Paladin is encouraged to chastise these people, to avoid their company or try to teach them to be better, but he has no obligation to smite them. If they're the only shop in town, he can buy from them. Associating with a miserly jerk through a single commercial interaction is not the same thing as signing a contract with a devil or working repeatedly over time with an undead lich or appearing on multiple episodes of Epic Meal Time.

A good Paladin-player recognizes this. He sees it as an opportunity for roleplay, not action. He may wag his finger at the shopkeep, he may scowl or be brusque, he may hurry out as quickly as possible, but this is one of those scenarios where dealing with mundane, everyday naughtiness is simply one of those things the Paladin can do in pursuit of his aims. A bad Paladin-player will raise a stink, claim that he can't set foot in that den of villainy, search for the local constabulary, demand a thorough investigation of the shop and finances, call the Inquisition, prepare a bonfire, the works. It's simply not necessary.

That said, if the guy shows up on Detect Evil with a moderate or stronger aura? Now we've got issues. That kind of bad juju doesn't show up on a guy who scares kids off his lawn with spooky masks. A moderate Evil aura requires either 11+ HD, or 2+ levels of Evil Cleric, or 2+ HD of Evil Outsider, or 3+ HD of Undead, or an Evil magic item with a 3+ caster level. In short, it requires the kind of stuff that could actually decimate a village if unchecked.

That's a call to action, friend. That's the time that you smile, pay for your goods, walk out quietly, gather your friends around, wrap an arm around their shoulders, smile again, and panic.

[Delwugor]

Nah. Detect Evil for a paladin is no different than a Bard sizing somebody up to see what their likes and dislikes are in order to present himself well. It's just another sense.
I just checked d20srd and d20pfsrd to be sure. Both indicate "as the spell" and require concentration for detect evil. This tells me it's a determined action, as is the Bard example you give. I am not seeing anything which indicates randomly determining evil with a sixth sense.

Open to more interpretation, I think unjustified use would cause problems with the "lawful" alignment in a working society. Using it while running into a groups of armed travelers in the wild could be justified, using it as a litmus test for citizens in a town/city would not be justified.


I seem to recall that several texts, in both Pathfinder and 3.5 (although I don't remember specific sources, forgive me), distinguish between "everyday Evil" like you find in roughly a third of all citizens, and "major Evil" like you find in cultists, demons, dragons and the living impaired.
I also thought that as well, but could not quickly find any direct reference. This is how I would rule it as a GM as someone with evil opinions is different than Evil abilities.

[hamishspence]

I seem to recall that several texts, in both Pathfinder and 3.5 (although I don't remember specific sources, forgive me), distinguish between "everyday Evil" like you find in roughly a third of all citizens, and "major Evil" like you find in cultists, demons, dragons and the living impaired.

It's understood that there are people who are "bad." They're not nice, they cheat on their taxes, they kick puppies, they foreclose homes in the middle of winter. They're jerks. But they're not murderers. They're not trying to ruin the government or become deities or raise an unholy army or teach a band of animated chairs to sing Rick Astley songs. They're everyday Evil, not major Evil.

And, in essence, everyday Evil doesn't count. The Paladin is encouraged to chastise these people, to avoid their company or try to teach them to be better, but he has no obligation to smite them. If they're the only shop in town, he can buy from them. Associating with a miserly jerk through a single commercial interaction is not the same thing as signing a contract with a devil or working repeatedly over time with an undead lich or appearing on multiple episodes of Epic Meal Time.

A good Paladin-player recognizes this. He sees it as an opportunity for roleplay, not action. He may wag his finger at the shopkeep, he may scowl or be brusque, he may hurry out as quickly as possible, but this is one of those scenarios where dealing with mundane, everyday naughtiness is simply one of those things the Paladin can do in pursuit of his aims. A bad Paladin-player will raise a stink, claim that he can't set foot in that den of villainy, search for the local constabulary, demand a thorough investigation of the shop and finances, call the Inquisition, prepare a bonfire, the works. It's simply not necessary.

That said, if the guy shows up on Detect Evil with a moderate or stronger aura? Now we've got issues. That kind of bad juju doesn't show up on a guy who scares kids off his lawn with spooky masks. A moderate Evil aura requires either 11+ HD, or 2+ levels of Evil Cleric, or 2+ HD of Evil Outsider, or 3+ HD of Undead, or an Evil magic item with a 3+ caster level. In short, it requires the kind of stuff that could actually decimate a village if unchecked.

That's a call to action, friend. That's the time that you smile, pay for your goods, walk out quietly, gather your friends around, wrap an arm around their shoulders, smile again, and panic.

It should be noted that Neutral clerics of Evil gods will ping on a paladin's Evildar.

I tend to agree in general with this picture. It certainly fits with Eberron (campaign setting book, and the Dragonshards article about Silver Flame paladins) as well as the "Evil Everywhere" archetype outlined in Quintessential Paladin II.

[Segev]

I just checked d20srd and d20pfsrd to be sure. Both indicate "as the spell" and require concentration for detect evil. This tells me it's a determined action, as is the Bard example you give. I am not seeing anything which indicates randomly determining evil with a sixth sense.I chose the Bard example deliberately, yes. It takes concentration. But it's hardly invasive. The worst it might do is be slightly uncomfortable if Mr. Paladin stares at you for just a little too long (4s to see if there's evil in front of him, 10s to pinpoint it to you or to somewhere else behind you if there is).

Taking a read on a new person is a deliberate action. It doesn't make it "unlawful," or even necessarily rude.

I mean, what's wrong with a Paladin asking, "is there evil in this tavern I just entered?" if his DM? He takes 6s or so to scan the room, and if he sees something off, takes a bit longer to pinpoint it. Just like anybody who has reason to assess a situation before jumping right in. i.e., most Lawful people in new situations.

[Delwugor]

I chose the Bard example deliberately, yes. It takes concentration. But it's hardly invasive. The worst it might do is be slightly uncomfortable if Mr. Paladin stares at you for just a little too long (4s to see if there's evil in front of him, 10s to pinpoint it to you or to somewhere else behind you if there is).
Your Bard example may not be invasive as a measuring up of a crowd. This does not mean that a Paladin purposely abusing detect evil also follows the same guidelines. In fact I would consider abuse of the power to be invasive and disrespectful of people.


Taking a read on a new person is a deliberate action. It doesn't make it "unlawful," or even necessarily rude.
We are not talking about assessing a situation or a person, we are talking about using a divine given Ability. In my book they are two completely different actions.
As I said earlier, it's open to interpretation, but I would determine unjustified use of the divine Ability is an abuse of the power and authority a Paladin has.
In the shopkeeper example I would consider that an abuse of power, and since it violates a social trust abuse could become "unlawful".


I mean, what's wrong with a Paladin asking, "is there evil in this tavern I just entered?" if his DM? He takes 6s or so to scan the room, and if he sees something off, takes a bit longer to pinpoint it. Just like anybody who has reason to assess a situation before jumping right in. i.e., most Lawful people in new situations.
Ahh, here is where I think your argument is confusing proper caution with using an Ability as a litmus test.
A Paladin walking into a shady bar would be justified in doing a Perception check to determine if everything is proper. That's simple precaution and does not abuse his Ability.
If nothing is going on and he decides to use his Ability "just to be sure", I would consider that abuse and approaching unlawful.
If there is a big Half-Orc with guards talking to another seedy character in the dark, then he could be justified.

For me it's a matter of use versus abuse. Using it for unjustified reasons is what I'd consider abuse and could lead to a slight chastisement from his deity.

[Scow2]

Hum I guess this really depends what game you are playing. In Dnd 3.0 and 3.5, the paladin detects evil as the spell like ability. Which means he must first cast the spell (which is pretty obvious). On the first round he knows if yes or no there is an evil aura within range, second round how many auras, third where they are.

If a paladin came into my shop, cast the obvious paladin spell and stared at me for 20 seconds, I would this find very rude, whether I am evil or not.You'd be creeped out by someone taking a few seconds to look around? There's nothing saying the paladin needs to focus on the person, just look in the general vicinity. And, he can carry on conversations as normal - Eye contact is pretty common in conversations, or so I hear. A paladin can be VERY discrete in detecting evil.

Also, it's a Supernatural, not Spell-Like, ability.

I'd say a paladin that doesn't scan everyone he sees is neglecting his responsibility.

[hamishspence]

Also, it's a Supernatural, not Spell-Like, ability.

Says "Sp" not "Su" here:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm

[Treblain]

If evil is an alignment possessed by relatively ordinary people who function in society and aren't maniacal psychos who have committed evil acts or are planning them imminently, then paladins should have learned to live in a civil society with people of that alignment long ago.

D&D's Evil and the Detect Evil spell are meant for bad guys in a game of good guys going into dungeons and fighting monsters. The only time the spell sees function in 'society' under that model is when you find out that the king's trusted advisor is secretly evil, or that the benevolent questgiver is a shapeshifting fiend in disguise.

Many D&D concepts are not meant for a simulation of civil society. The hypothetical is unfair because in a better simulation, either the shopkeeper should not be evil in the first place, or else evil is not such a big deal and paladins wouldn't have such a wide mandate to destroy creatures of evil alignment.

[Segev]

What is he doing wrong, whose right to what is he violating, by using Detect Evil?

I am specifically objecting to the claim that using it regularly as part of his "size up the situation" actions is somehow unlawful, and generally responding to the idea that it should cause offense. Paladins can sense evil. It's something they are meant to be able to recognize easily.

I'm certainly not suggesting he use it as a "litmus test" to determine acceptable targets or anything of the sort; I'm saying that a Paladin who uses his Detect Evil ability regularly is not doing anything wrong. He's just getting more information about the people and place and things around him.

So, again, what is unlawful about it? How is it abusive? What law is he violating, what rule? Who is he hurting by using it? What rights do they have that he is infringing?

[hamishspence]

If evil is an alignment possessed by relatively ordinary people who function in society and aren't maniacal psychos who have committed evil acts or are planning them imminently, then paladins should have learned to live in a civil society with people of that alignment long ago.
Which is pretty much how Eberron does it:

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. 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.
D&D's Evil and the Detect Evil spell are meant for bad guys in a game of good guys going into dungeons and fighting monsters. The only time the spell sees function in 'society' under that model is when you find out that the king's trusted advisor is secretly evil, or that the benevolent questgiver is a shapeshifting fiend in disguise.
In 1st ed, maybe. But a lot of time has passed since then.


either the shopkeeper should not be evil in the first place, or else evil is not such a big deal and paladins wouldn't have such a wide mandate to destroy creatures of evil alignment.

The paladin's mandate is specifically to "punish those that harm or threaten innocents"

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm

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 Detect Evil and Smite Evil are useful tools toward that end, they are not the be-all and end-all.

[GungHo]

Sounds like a perfect plot hook for me.

The paladin will want to investigate why a seemingly honest shopkeeper is evil. Is he a murderer? A cultist? In league with evil forces? Or just an innocent who's been possessed (perhaps unknowingly)?

Any number of adventures could be set off by this.

I'd keep this going for awhile. It would turn out he was framed. A misdirection was cast on the shopkeeper (and a number of other public officials, for that matter) by a conspiracy specifically designed to see how much time they could waste for every paladin that entered town. The tweeeist would be that the cabal responsible for the misdirections is a CG group of privacy advocates.

[Red Fel]

So, again, what is unlawful about it? How is it abusive? What law is he violating, what rule? Who is he hurting by using it? What rights do they have that he is infringing?

Not everyone has rights that are violated by the Paladin performing an x-ray of the souls of everyone within his cone of vision. Not everyone needs to feel that their privacy has been abused simply because they have passed under the staff and been weighed, measured, and found wanting. Unless the particular locale in question has laws against unlicensed divinations, I don't see it being a violation of rights or laws.

But people may be weirded out or uncomfortable when a big, burly fella in shiny armor with a honking huge sword and an intimidating holy symbol walks in and starts glaring intently at things all over the place. One might be just a bit put out by such things. Heck, I might get defensive even if I had nothing to hide.

And that's the thing. Can a Paladin wander around constantly Detecting all over the place? Sure. Is it legal? Almost certainly. Is it advisable? Heck no. The very tool that could make the Paladin a great detective, like all of a Paladin's tools, may become useless if overused. (See also the Paladin's immunity to STDs.) If the Paladin goes around with his Detect face constantly on, people will be uncomfortable around him, and start hiding from him. It's hard to scan for the bad guys when even the good guys disappear as soon as you show up.

[hamishspence]

The tweeeist would be that the cabal responsible for the misdirections is a CG group of privacy advocates.

Sounds about right. I could imagine that sort of character trying to get Detect Evil classified as an "illegal search" along these lines:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html

[Segev]

As a spell-like ability, the Paladin need show nothing when he uses it. He might have a "tell," if he squints or something, but it just takes concentration. So it's no harder than reading a sign posted a few feet away. If he's staring at you for a particularly long, notable time, he's probably gotten the sense there is evil in that arc in front of him (or he just thinks you're pretty, or something), and is trying to pinpoint it.

Yes, going around glaring isn't going to make friends. It's hardly necessary, though, to regularly use Detect Evil when you first wander into a scene, and is not unlawful in any event.

[Nerd-o-rama]

It's impossible to determine a just course of action - let alone one that aligns with the Paladin's fairly specific ideal of justice - simply through one use of one first-level spell-like ability.

Finding an Evil shopkeeper isn't an indication that that shopkeeper should be summarily executed - an attitude like that leads to characters like Miko, who have their place, but not in the Lawful Good corner of the alignment box.

I'd suggest going and finding a different shop, and if there's not a more pressing matter at hand, investigating the shopkeeper. Even a simple conversation with him and some Sense Motive checks should give you an idea - he's hiding some truly Evil act, he's a cheat, etc. Again, if you have the free time to deal with hopefully fairly mundane evilness instead of going out and killing demons, set him straight, preferably through normal discourse and not threats or violence.

[GungHo]

As a spell-like ability, the Paladin need show nothing when he uses it. He might have a "tell," if he squints or something, but it just takes concentration. So it's no harder than reading a sign posted a few feet away. If he's staring at you for a particularly long, notable time, he's probably gotten the sense there is evil in that arc in front of him (or he just thinks you're pretty, or something), and is trying to pinpoint it.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120909000326/seinfeld/images/b/b2/The_wink.jpg

[Scow2]

Sounds about right. I could imagine that sort of character trying to get Detect Evil classified as an "illegal search" along these lines:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.htmlThere's no way they're CG, because they're deliberately making an "innocent" man suffer for their own agenda.


Which is pretty much how Eberron does it:

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. 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.
ANd I'd say that Keith Baker has absolutely no idea just how horrible people need to be to be considered Evil, nor how disturbingly common that level of depravityis (Because he's privileged enough to live in an area that's relatively free of Evil people - The demographic spread of Good, Neutral, and Evil ISN'T even across all facets of society.)

[hamishspence]

It's impossible to determine a just course of action - let alone one that aligns with the Paladin's fairly specific ideal of justice - simply through one use of one first-level spell-like ability.

Finding an Evil shopkeeper isn't an indication that that shopkeeper should be summarily executed - an attitude like that leads to characters like Miko, who have their place, but not in the Lawful Good corner of the alignment box.

I'd suggest going and finding a different shop, and if there's not a more pressing matter at hand, investigating the shopkeeper. Even a simple conversation with him and some Sense Motive checks should give you an idea - he's hiding some truly Evil act, he's a cheat, etc. Again, if you have the free time to deal with hopefully fairly mundane evilness instead of going out and killing demons, set him straight, preferably through normal discourse and not threats or violence.

It may help if the DM tells the player ahead of time just how common Evil is in his campaigns- and what "level" it is:


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 go 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.

[Scow2]

Finding an Evil shopkeeper isn't an indication that that shopkeeper should be summarily executed - an attitude like that leads to characters like Miko, who have their place, but not in the Lawful Good corner of the alignment box.
Miko was perfectly Lawful Good... or would have been if she wasn't self-deluded into believing she was always right. The closest she came to "Attack on Sight" was when she attacked a known band of terrorists who were confirmed to have murdered several people, brutalized innocent Lawful Good creatures, mistreated animals, (And, in a case of understandable mistaken identity) abused and violated a shopkeeper, AND were confirmed to deliberately and knowingly weaken the fabric of the universe. Even then, she had the presence of mind to confirm that the party leader was indeed Evil before moving to strike... and as soon as she realized there WERE mistakes, she was open to negotiating and bringing the party along peacefully.

Oh yeah, she also attacked a pair of bandits who she tried to negotiate with to find her quarry... but only reacted with lethal force AFTER they attacked her first (because she refused to submit to their slavery), and she sought to destroy an unrepentant, psychotic murderer who had slain and desecrated the corpse of a Lawful Good guard, and killed a corrupt political leader who had dedicated his life to dismantling and destroying the order underlying the Paladin's strength, and abusing their vows, and conspired with associates of a Chaotic Evil Lich.

[hamishspence]

I seem to recall that several texts, in both Pathfinder and 3.5 (although I don't remember specific sources, forgive me), distinguish between "everyday Evil" like you find in roughly a third of all citizens, and "major Evil" like you find in cultists, demons, dragons and the living impaired.

It's understood that there are people who are "bad." They're not nice, they cheat on their taxes, they kick puppies, they foreclose homes in the middle of winter. They're jerks. But they're not murderers. They're not trying to ruin the government or become deities or raise an unholy army or teach a band of animated chairs to sing Rick Astley songs. They're everyday Evil, not major Evil.

And, in essence, everyday Evil doesn't count. The Paladin is encouraged to chastise these people, to avoid their company or try to teach them to be better, but he has no obligation to smite them.

From the Pathfinder SRD:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules

Creatures with an evil subtype (generally outsiders) are creatures that are fundamentally evil: devils, daemons, and demons, for instance. Their redemption is rare, if it is even possible. They are evil to their very core, and commit evil acts perpetually and persistently.

Mortals with an evil alignment, however, are different from these beings. In fact, having an evil alignment alone does not make one a super-villain or even require one to be thwarted or killed. The extent of a character's evil alignment might be a lesser evil, like selfishness, greed, or extreme vanity.

[Socksy]

... Why not season our 3.x with a little Pathfinder where our rules don't cover things?:smallbiggrin:

[Scow2]

Meh... I have no problem with "Murderhobo Paladins" killing people who ping evil. A shame the real world doesn't have any way to reliably identify the scum the world's better off without.

Relevant song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drEGR-H92EU

[hamishspence]

A shame the real world doesn't have any way to reliably identify the scum the world's better off without.

That's the thing- in D&D, having an evil alignment, does not automatically mean one is "scum".

[jedipotter]

However, lets assume that paladins don't have the license to kill with impunity and lets assume "being evil" isn't itself a punishable crime.Now a paladin walks into a shop of some kind, the shop owner dings as evil on the paladin's evil-radar. But the shop owner is a respected member of society as far as you know. He's not hurting anyone that you know of.What does the paladin do? Obviously he can't trade with the shop owner, since that's associating with evil. And he can't arrest him, since he hasn't committed any crime, and he doesn't have the legal right to attack him.
Does he just let it go? What does he do?

The paladin has two basic options:

Cop Paladin He will follow, observe and investigate the evil person until he uncovers an evil act. Then, depending on the act he will arrest or kill the evil person based on how evil they are and such. If the shopkeeper was just stealing or another such crime, that would be arrest. As they paladin would use what he knows to make a case against the person. If the shop keeper is a member of the cult of Darkolth, that would be death. But at night, during the dark blood ritual, not on main street on a busy day.

Warrior Paladin Would stay clear of the evil person, and inform others of their evil.....but otherwise take no action. The warrior paladin, as a warrior, is focused on finding and fighting and destroying true abominational evils. He is not going after every shopkeeper that shaves his coins.

[hamishspence]

Cop Paladin He will follow, observe and investigate the evil person until he uncovers an evil act. Then, depending on the act he will arrest or kill the evil person based on how evil they are and such. If the shopkeeper was just stealing or another such crime, that would be arrest. As they paladin would use what he knows to make a case against the person. If the shop keeper is a member of the cult of Darkolth, that would be death. But at night, during the dark blood ritual, not on main street on a busy day.

That fits fairly well with the "Evil as a Choice" campaign model:


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.

[Scow2]

That's the thing- in D&D, having an evil alignment, does not automatically mean one is "scum".Yes it does. If you weren't scum the world would be better off without, you'd be at least Neutral.

[hamishspence]

Savage Species's Chaotic/Accepting perspective - modified slightly for wider applicability - may be a better one.

page 103 Savage Species:


In this world, evil among monsters sapients is largely perceived to be a psychological condition rather than an absolute or genetic one. Most monsters sapients are thought to become creatures of evil or destruction not because of any infernal or diabolic tie, but because of rejection, loneliness, or some other understandable psychological condition. Even the foulest tanar'ri may in truth be the victim of its own psychoses, and the enlightened people of this world hold out hope that with openness, respect, and even love, the darkest of souls can be redeemed. And who knows? Perhaps they are right.

[Gavran]

I don't play any games where Detect Evil is a thing, but if there's a tool that says "Yep, you're a bad guy" and "bad guy" means more than "guy who isn't nice" - keeping in mind that selfishness is merely neutral - I would say a paladin who fails to regularly use and act on Detect Evil is very much failing in his duties.

It's also worth pointing out that invading privacy to judge someone's soul, while in my opinion an absolutely silly objection*, is very very Lawful.

*Only someone with something to hide need fear it, and unlike any real-world analogues that are generally considered bad, it's in the hands of someone who is literally a champion of Doing the Right Thing and literally loses the ability to do it if they abuse it. No non-Evil person need fear a Paladin at all, and Detect Evil even less so.

[hamishspence]

No non-Evil person need fear a Paladin at all, and Detect Evil even less so.

Nonevil Undead, and nonevil Clerics Of Evil Deities (who focus on the less evil facets of the deity) might have reason to worry.

As might the few Neutral characters who have "harmed or threatened innocents".

[jedipotter]

That fits fairly well with the "Evil as a Choice" campaign model:

Eh, I like ''low grade evils everywhere and is a choice.'' So 1/3 of the world will ping on the evil-dar. But it is the degree of evil.

1.Tells lies and makes up stories
3.Steals. Cheats. Takes what is not theirs.
5.Assaults people for fun

For the most part, the Paladin does not care about evil under five. The shopkeeper that sells bad goods, the pickpocket and the bully all get ignored by the paladin.

6.Murderer. Hardened criminal.
8.Inhuman
10.Beyond Inhuman...like eating souls.

The six and above is where the paladins focus is. The orc bandits that are slaughtering townsfolk, the beholder cult, and the unspeakable thing from the Far Realm.

[Scow2]

As might the few Neutral characters who have "harmed or threatened innocents".Well, if they harm or threaten innocents, that's their own damn fault.

And if you worship an Evil deity, no matter your actual alignment, you need to find a new deity.

[BRC]

Yes it does. If you weren't scum the world would be better off without, you'd be at least Neutral.
Yes, but that does not necessarily mean that either Moral nor Civil codes would sentence you to death.

Consider Ebeneezer Scrooge. Scrooge is greedy and cruel, he underpays and overworks his employees in the interest of greater personal profit. Scrooge is Evil, he knowingly and consistently harms others for his own profit, he is cruel and selfish.
I would argue that Scrooge would ping as "Evil" just as much as a bandit who attacks travelers on the road and takes their money. You could make a strong argument that the world would be better off without Scrooge. The Bandit and Scrooge have the same mindset: It is right to hurt others in order to benefit yourself. That mindset is the essence of Evil.

However, It's hard to argue that a Paladin should be allowed to just murder Scrooge. While his crimes are many they are both lawful and petty. It's hard to point out any INDIVIDUAL crime he has committed that is worthy of the death penalty.

Although that could be an interesting idea for a campaign setting. An order of Paladins whose Detect Evil spells are so sensitive they have a good chance to ping on just about anybody.

[Segev]

I don't know about anybody else in this thread, but I haven't been advocating using Detect Evil and then smiting the dude. It just gives the paladin reason to say, "okay, I need to watch this guy more carefully" or "huh, there may be something I need to investigate, here." If it turns up some "innocent" explanation (non-evil undead, insane fiends with a good alignment, Roy wearing Xykon's crown), he will likely discover it before he does something irreparable, because he's a Paladin and he's going to perform his due diligence when there is time to do so. And as long as the guy he's sensing evil on isn't in the middle of evil actions, there's time.

[Scow2]

However, It's hard to argue that a Paladin should be allowed to just murder Scrooge. While his crimes are many they are both lawful and petty. It's hard to point out any INDIVIDUAL crime he has committed that is worthy of the death penalty.I'd actually say he was Neutral, not Evil... His employees have the choice whether to work for him or not, and he doesn't go out into the streets, grab random people, and force them to work for him (And he DOES pay his employees, even if it's very little).

While he's cold and ruthless, he's not like Mr. Potter from Its A Wonderful Life, who does much, much worse.

[BRC]

I'd actually say he was Neutral, not Evil... His employees have the choice whether to work for him or not, and he doesn't go out into the streets, grab random people, and force them to work for him (And he DOES pay his employees, even if it's very little).

While he's cold and ruthless, he's not like Mr. Potter from Its A Wonderful Life, who does much, much worse.
Scrooge specifically is less important that the type of character I was trying to evoke.

In the case of the hypothetical Bandit, the Bandit is stronger than his victims, he uses this strength to take their wealth from them.

Scrooge (or Mr. Potter, or whomever) is also more powerful than his victims. His power comes from wealth and status rather than a strong arm and an axe.

Their mindsets are fundamentally the same. Scrooge would pay his workers nothing if he could get away with it. The Bandit would take even more money if he could get away with it. Both of them leave their victims with less money than they should have. Is the Bandit inheriently more evil because he is willing to kill or maim his victims if they don't hand over the money, while Scrooge is content to let them rot in poverty?

In both cases the victim is left with less money than they deserve.

Although, there is another idea for a take on Paladins. Paladins who battle evil in all forms, but always in the same way. The Bandit on the road is targeted by a Paladin who rides out in heavy armor, wielding a large sword and defeating the Bandit with strength of arms.
Meanwhile Scrooge finds himself targeted by a different flavor of Paladin, one that opens up a rival business, lavishly spending their own money (Self-sacrifice) in order to put Scrooge out of business. They hire Scrooges employees by offering them better pay and steal his customers.

[hamishspence]

Well, if they harm or threaten innocents, that's their own damn fault.
How about when they have "sacrificed The Few for the benefit of The Many"?

[Segev]

Consider Ebeneezer Scrooge. Scrooge is greedy and cruel, he underpays and overworks his employees in the interest of greater personal profit. Scrooge is Evil, he knowingly and consistently harms others for his own profit, he is cruel and selfish.
I would argue that Scrooge would ping as "Evil" just as much as a bandit who attacks travelers on the road and takes their money.I would actually argue differently. Scrooge is not kind. But he doesn't force anybody to do anything. He pays what he has to to keep employees; if they could get a better job, they would. He doesn't hold them at gun point and demand they work lest he torture and murder their families. He doesn't even go out of his way to be cruel. He is simply selfish and stingy to the point of being mean about it.

He's grouchy. He's very, very grouchy.

But grouchy is not evil. Scrooge is not a thief - he would not take something to which he was not entitled. He is in no way portrayed as manipulating the law to immorally take somebody else's hard-earned property, either.

His reputation is well-earned for being a hard taskmaster and a mean forecloser on mortgages. But again, it is not his fault, nor his doing, that his "victims" were unable to pay. If they were, he would take their money and they would keep what they agreed to pay it for.

His cruelest line is the one about the poor hurrying up and dying "to decrease the surplus population," and it's said in response to people trying to coax him into Good behavior by appealing to his sense of compassion. But he doesn't advocate murdering them. Just letting them fend for themselves. Or, if they can't or won't, dying and getting out of the way of those who can.

It is not evil; just wholly neutral. He doesn't care, except in that he's grouchy and doesn't like being bothered by others' plights.


You could make a strong argument that the world would be better off without Scrooge.Really? Bob Cratchet would be without a job, and his family colder and more hungry, if Scrooge were not around. The loans he gave would not have been givne, so those mortgages on which he foreclosed would not ever have happened, and those who got them wouldn't even have had a home for a little while. And, since he does make a lot of money, he clearly doesn't foreclose on everything; those who pay would not have the homes they have without him.

"But," I hear you say, "somebody else would offer fairer, better loans, if he wasn't around?" To which I reply, "Who? And why don't they, anyway?" All those people who Scrooge abuses would go to the less abusive lenders, if they existed. Scrooge's existence in no way is depicted as preventing others from being in his line of business!


The Bandit and Scrooge have the same mindset: It is right to hurt others in order to benefit yourself. That mindset is the essence of Evil.Scrooge's mindset is that what's his is his and he earned it, so why should those others hurt HIM to benefit THEMSELVES? One could argue that the very attitude that Scrooge somehow owes kinder generosity to others to be that of the bandit's: I have less than he does, so it's okay to hurt him a little to help me a lot.

I doubt that anybody would call those who despised Scrooge's stingy ways evil, though.

[Gavran]

Nonevil Undead, and nonevil Clerics Of Evil Deities (who focus on the less evil facets of the deity) might have reason to worry.

As might the few Neutral characters who have "harmed or threatened innocents".

As said, I don't play any of the games where Detect Evil is a thing. I stipulated about what it must be able to tell about a person before I'd consider it valid. If an otherwise neutral person who made one or two mistakes pings evil, then it is not a good tool. I don't think many people would argue that it's that inefficient, though. Non-evil things, undead, cleric, or otherwise invalidates the terms of my statement.

They also happen to be very silly. Detect Evil that detects "negative energy" and metaphysical Evil is one thing, and Detect Evil that detects Evil alignments is another. I imagine the designers failed to agree which one should exist, hence the majority of the dissent in this thread.

[veti]

Being a Paladin does not give carte blanche for a character to start an Inquisition. How many people think the Spanish Inquisition was a good thing?
Pathfinder actually has the Inquisitor class where that type of action would be more justified.

Interesting sidenote: the Inquisition (of which the Spanish Inquisition was only one branch) was originally formed as a more humane alternative to "paladins" smiting everyone indiscriminately (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade).

At least with the Inquisition, you'd get a formal trial and a chance to recant and repent.

[hamishspence]

It is not evil; just wholly neutral. He doesn't care, except in that he's grouchy and doesn't like being bothered by others' plights.

"Selfishness" and "greed" can be facets of a Evil personality though - depending on how strong they are and how the DM interprets it:

In fact, having an evil alignment alone does not make one a super-villain or even require one to be thwarted or killed. The extent of a character's evil alignment might be a lesser evil, like selfishness, greed, or extreme vanity.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Miko was perfectly Lawful Good... or would have been if she wasn't self-deluded into believing she was always right. The closest she came to "Attack on Sight" was when she attacked a known band of terrorists who were confirmed to have murdered several people, brutalized innocent Lawful Good creatures, mistreated animals, (And, in a case of understandable mistaken identity) abused and violated a shopkeeper, AND were confirmed to deliberately and knowingly weaken the fabric of the universe. Even then, she had the presence of mind to confirm that the party leader was indeed Evil before moving to strike... and as soon as she realized there WERE mistakes, she was open to negotiating and bringing the party along peacefully.

Oh yeah, she also attacked a pair of bandits who she tried to negotiate with to find her quarry... but only reacted with lethal force AFTER they attacked her first (because she refused to submit to their slavery), and she sought to destroy an unrepentant, psychotic murderer who had slain and desecrated the corpse of a Lawful Good guard, and killed a corrupt political leader who had dedicated his life to dismantling and destroying the order underlying the Paladin's strength, and abusing their vows, and conspired with associates of a Chaotic Evil Lich.

I was more referring to the fact that, justifications aside, she still bisected her sworn liege in front of the Twelve Gods and everybody based on spurious evidence, and then later on herself directly saved the aforementioned Chaotic Evil lich from righteous justice at the ectoplasmic hands of her Order's founder based on nothing but her own pride and pigheadedness.

Anyway, I don't want to resurrect the tedious Miko Miyazaki alignment/justification threads. I just want to use her as an example of "think before you Smite".

[BRC]

I'm regretting specifically using Scrooge here.

Let's make a hypothetical Scrooge-esque character, a greedy- self-serving businessman. We'll call him Mister Greed.

Lets go with Bob the Bandit as our archetypical Evil character.

Bob the Bandit sees a merchant travelling along the road. The Merchant has 100 gold. He Should end his journey with 100 Gold.
Bob knows he can take the Gold, and so he does.
The merchant now has 100 gold less than he should.

Bob is Evil, he took what was not his and hurt another for his own benefit.

Mister Greed just hired somebody to do a job. He knows that this work is worth 100 gold.
However, he also knows that he can get away with paying less. Maybe the person he hires is desperate, or maybe Mister greed can count on his status in society to protect him if the worker claims he was not paid a fair wage. Or maybe the worker is just ignorant as to the value of his own work. Either way, Mister Greed only pays 20 Gold. These are all forms of Power just as much as Bob's Axe.

In both situations one person is in a position of power, they are using that power to harm another for their own benefit, with the end result being that the victim ends up worse off than they should be.

The details are different, but the fundamental exchange is the same.

[hamishspence]

Supposing for the moment one is not playing a Paladin, but a Neutral adventurer with a custom wondrous item of at-will Detect Evil - who kills everyone they come across who "pings".

At what point, if any, does "absolute lack of compassion, and lack of respect for life" (directed at the Evil-aligned) become enough to make one Evil enough to ping when someone else picks up the item and tests it on the character - I wonder?



Mister Greed just hired somebody to do a job. He knows that this work is worth 100 gold.
However, he also knows that he can get away with paying less. Maybe the person he hires is desperate, or maybe Mister greed can count on his status in society to protect him if the worker claims he was not paid a fair wage. Or maybe the worker is just ignorant as to the value of his own work. Either way, Mister Greed only pays 20 Gold. These are all forms of Power just as much as Bob's Axe.

In both situations one person is in a position of power, they are using that power to harm another for their own benefit, with the end result being that the victim ends up worse off than they should be.

The details are different, but the fundamental exchange is the same.

That might fit with "low-end" Evil characters - very close to the "borderline" between Evil and Neutral.

There are many forms of "cheating" (Evil by BoVD) after all.

A big point about Scrooge was that his behaviour was supposed to get him an "awful fate" in the afterlife unless he repented (becoming a ghost and wearing long and heavy chains for all eternity).

And yet (in my headcanon), Somebody, feels compassion for him - enough to send Marley and the 3 Ghosts to him, as a warning.

So, Scrooge, while urgently in need of Repentance - is yet deserving of that encouragement to Mend his Ways.

[Delwugor]

Lots of good quotes and clarifications
Thanks for the great posts that helped clarify some stuff I was not directly sure of, or too lazy to look up, you pick which.


The tweeeist would be that the cabal responsible for the misdirections is a CG group of privacy advocates.
I have been hesitant to bring this up because I don't want to go down a Godwin's Law path. Issues of privacy are of course a significant problem in today's real world, that goes beyond this discussion but I find the analogy interesting.


So, again, what is unlawful about it? How is it abusive? What law is he violating, what rule? Who is he hurting by using it? What rights do they have that he is infringing?
Just to clarify, are you disagreeing or am I failing to get my perspective through correctly?
I'm fine with a disagreement as I'm not on some Paladin Crusade (wasn't that clever? come on it was clever, not even a little clever? ha) and will just leave it as disagreeing.
If you are unclear of what I mean then I'll gladly clarify more. For example GungHo's privacy advocates would not be happy of having their personal rights of privacy intruded upon.

[hamishspence]

Thanks for the great posts that helped clarify some stuff I was not directly sure of, or too lazy to look up, you pick which.


You're welcome. I enjoy discussing D&D alignment and digging up stuff from books, in any case.

[Delwugor]

Interesting sidenote: the Inquisition (of which the Spanish Inquisition was only one branch) was originally formed as a more humane alternative to "paladins" smiting everyone indiscriminately (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade).
I was not aware of that, thanks for the info ... excuse me while I drop off and go into geek mode and look up more of this.


At least with the Inquisition, you'd get a formal trial and a chance to recant and repent.
I repent that I got caught.

[hamishspence]

It would turn out he was framed. A misdirection was cast on the shopkeeper (and a number of other public officials, for that matter) by a conspiracy specifically designed to see how much time they could waste for every paladin that entered town. The tweeeist would be that the cabal responsible for the misdirections is a CG group of privacy advocates.

I could see somebody using "Fake Aura of Evil" (there's various ways of making someone falsely ping as Evil - Planar Motes from Complete Scoundrel is one of the easiest ways) specifically in order to test paladins.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SecretTestOfCharacter

Maybe even the paladin's own deity.

[tiltedwindmill]

Taking the discussion down an alternate track...

A significant portion of this can be solved by appropriate use of backstory (which we all know can be created on the fly if necessary).

Was the paladin in question trained by an order of paladins? I think how and when to use their granted-at-level-one power would be fairly basic training... Something tells me a group of by definition 100% lawful people would come up with some sort of rules on the subject.

Alternatively, is the paladin a complete naif? Maybe he thinks he's like all the other fighters and just never got the hang of the tower shield. In that case he might walk around using detect evil without even thinking of it as a spell... in which case he might trust his gut, but almost certainly not enough to start up a killing spree.

Something tells me just about any way you want to handle it can be interesting and add depth to the character, just so long as you work it out with the dm and be consistent (non-metagamey) with it.

[hamishspence]

A significant portion of this can be solved by appropriate use of backstory (which we all know can be created on the fly if necessary).

Was the paladin in question trained by an order of paladins? I think how and when to use their granted-at-level-one power would be fairly basic training... Something tells me a group of by definition 100% lawful people would come up with some sort of rules on the subject.

Alternatively, is the paladin a complete naif? Maybe he thinks he's like all the other fighters and just never got the hang of the tower shield. In that case he might walk around using detect evil without even thinking of it as a spell... in which case he might trust his gut, but almost certainly not enough to start up a killing spree.

Something tells me just about any way you want to handle it can be interesting and add depth to the character, just so long as you work it out with the dm and be consistent (non-metagamey) with it.

Well put.

The idea of a paladin unaware (or unwilling to admit) that they are a paladin, is an interesting one.

Jherek, in The Threat from the Sea (Forgotten Realms book) was one.

[Wulfram]

If that's all the Paladin has to go on, they'd probably more or less ignore it. Perhaps make a few basic checks to make sure there's been nothing major going on in the area.

But executing him out of hand is probably not an option, and loitering around to see if they'll commit a crime is unlikely to be worth their while - there's a lot more evil people than paladins in the world. Better to focus on places where they know there is a crime, and a real threat.

To me, what would be more interesting is if the King pinged as evil. That's not so ignorable.

[Slipperychicken]

I think a traveling Paladin (i.e. one with bigger fish to fry) would be within his rights to tip off the local government, merchant guild, and clergy that the shopkeep pings as Evil. It's okay to let the locals handle it.

Also, it's worth noting that in PF the shopkeep wouldn't even ping unless he had 5 or more HD. It solves the evil-commoner issue rather nicely.

[Segev]

"Selfishness" and "greed" can be facets of a Evil personality though - depending on how strong they are and how the DM interprets it:

In fact, having an evil alignment alone does not make one a super-villain or even require one to be thwarted or killed. The extent of a character's evil alignment might be a lesser evil, like selfishness, greed, or extreme vanity.

To have selfishness and greet tip you from neutral to evil, you have to engage in active harm to others to benefit yourself. Scrooge never quite crosses that line; his harm is only done to those who would harm him if he didn't. Now, proportionality enters into it, and is why we tend to view him as totally unreasonably jerkish: the harm to him over letting somebody slide on payments is nowhere near the harm to them of doing justice and evicting them. But they agreed to the terms when they signed the loan, and so they are in the wrong if they harm him without his generous permission.

Unkind simile here, but... it's like mosquitoes; they don't really cause appreciable harm to humans (under normal conditions in the USA, anyway), but we still smack them for the discomfort they do cause us.

Heck, Scrooge grouses about it, but he gives Cratchet the whole day off for Christmas. That doesn't sound like much, since in theory EVERYBODY took Christmas off, but note that Scrooge did NOT dock him a day's wages for it, either, which he would have been within his rights to do. Scrooge was not a kind man, and he hated Christmas for what its memory made him feel, but he wasn't evil.

[hamishspence]

To have selfishness and greet tip you from neutral to evil, you have to engage in active harm to others to benefit yourself. Scrooge never quite crosses that line; his harm is only done to those who would harm him if he didn't.

Remember at the start of the book - when a kid is singing a carol outside his door - and Scrooge's immediate response is to rush outside with his heavy ruler to hit the kid, who promptly scarpers?

That's pretty much a Character Defining Moment for him.




Also, it's worth noting that in PF the shopkeep wouldn't even ping unless he had 5 or more HD. It solves the evil-commoner issue rather nicely.

There's still plenty of 5th level Commoners and Experts out there. According to Cityscape & Arms & Equipment Guide - 5th level is Journeyman level in a profession.

[Grek]

Do keep in mind that Detect Evil does not necessarily tell you whether or not someone is of an evil alignment - consider the following cases:

1. An Imp who has been converted to the ways of goodness and justice. It is Good because its alignment is Good, but will show up on Detect Evil as a moderate aura of evil because it is a devil with the [Evil] subtype.
2. An 11th level True Neutral Cleric who worships Vecna in his aspect of the Keeper of the Forbidden Lore. He has devoted his life to keeping evil magic out of the hands of the innocent, but detects as overwhelming evil.
3. An Angel who has just been splashed with Unholy Water. While the angel itself is Good, the unholy water is subject to an ongoing [Evil] spell, causing the angel to have an aura of evil around it.
4. An honest, upstanding book merchant who had unknowingly been sold a Flesh Golem Manual as part of a lot of books at an estate sale. Despite being unaware of the contents of his inventory, he has an moderate evil aura about him due to the book he carries.
5. An ordinary commoner who has been afflicted with the Wither Limb spell from Liber Mortis. All he wants is for the Paladin to please uncurse his legs, but due to his affliction, he detects as moderately evil and (to a paladin unaware of how detect evil works) unworthy of a cure.

[Kelb_Panthera]

From the conversations on this board I've come to the understanding that many people here think a paladin is justified in killing/subduing an evil person, even if the evil person isn't attacking the paladin. Now if you disagree with that assertion then this question isn't for you, I can't stop you from answering though.

However, lets assume that paladins don't have the license to kill with impunity and lets assume "being evil" isn't itself a punishable crime.
Now a paladin walks into a shop of some kind, the shop owner dings as evil on the paladin's evil-radar. But the shop owner is a respected member of society as far as you know. He's not hurting anyone that you know of.
What does the paladin do? Obviously he can't trade with the shop owner, since that's associating with evil. And he can't arrest him, since he hasn't committed any crime, and he doesn't have the legal right to attack him.
Does he just let it go? What does he do?

I wouldn't be inclined to account "purchasing a few necessary supplies" as associating with the man in the first place. In any case, the paladin's choice is clear. He walks away. If he has nothing better to do, he can watch the fellow (covertly, if at all possible) until he -does- do something to warrant arrest or attack or until he comes to the conclusion that the fellow's evil aura is simply the result of him being a d-bag that thoroughly enjoys being a d-bag but is otherwise unworthy of serious punishment.

Of note, however, is the fact that the associates clause in the class' description is not part of the code. It's a separate clause. It can be interpreted in one of two ways. The much more reasonable of the two is to disregard the first sentence as a simple lead-up to the second and that a paladin simply may not engage any henchman, followers, or cohorts of evil alignment. The other, much stricter reading would be that a paladin is -incapable- of associating with evil characters; as in "cannot" as opposed to "may not." With that reading and the assumption that making a purchase counts as "associating," the paladin literally has no choice in the matter of whether or not to make any purchases. This doesn't change my previous conclusion at all.

[SiuiS]

From the conversations on this board I've come to the understanding that many people here think a paladin is justified in killing/subduing an evil person, even if the evil person isn't attacking the paladin. Now if you disagree with that assertion then this question isn't for you, I can't stop you from answering though.

However, lets assume that paladins don't have the license to kill with impunity and lets assume "being evil" isn't itself a punishable crime.
Now a paladin walks into a shop of some kind, the shop owner dings as evil on the paladin's evil-radar. But the shop owner is a respected member of society as far as you know. He's not hurting anyone that you know of.
What does the paladin do? Obviously he can't trade with the shop owner, since that's associating with evil. And he can't arrest him, since he hasn't committed any crime, and he doesn't have the legal right to attack him.
Does he just let it go? What does he do?

Define 'dings as evil', please?

A human commoner, expert, aristocrat, etc., will have a faint aura of evil if they routinely commit evil acts. This aura will linger for a few hours at most; the paladin cannot know if this person has just recently committed a crime of sic heinous magnitude that they have been stained by it (and might actually be Good or Neutral), or if they. Commit recurring but less serious evil acts all the time, or what.

A person with an aura of evil as strong as their hit dice is a different beast entirely. They are either a creature of pure evil, or a channeler and servant of one. While being evil is not against the law, the majority of evil actions are, and this person achieves evil status by committing those acts.

In either case, the paragon of virtue who cannot and will not lie, informs the local authorities that he has definitive proof of misdeeds and would like either an investigation, an arrest, or a writ of outlawry so they can handle it themselves. Nothing says you need to be trigger happy just because you have jurisdiction.

[Kelb_Panthera]

On the Scrooge argument:

That his employees have a choice is a spurious argument. If they could get a better job they would. Realistically, they have three choices: work for scrooge, steal what they need and risk the rather dire repercussions of an early industrial "justice" system, or starve.

I'd hardly call that a choice. Poverty, poverty with a chance of maiming, or death; clearly they don't -have- to work for Scrooge.

[kailkay]

Oh philosophical debates, how I love thee. :)

Let us consider the following: Shopkeep George and Shopkeep Fred have shops set up next to one another.

George is a bit of a ****. He cheats on his taxes, constantly fights with his wife, ridicules his kid when he's had a bad day, sells cheap goods to people who go by, waters down the healing potions, etc etc. Yeah, he's doing some heinous things at home, but he isn't murdering anybody, just generally being a miserable cretin. Dings as evil. Neutral evil, or perhaps lawful evil, depending how he goes about those things.

Fred, next door, has bodies hanging from the banisters in his basement, kidnapped women tied up in closets in his house, etc etc. He also dings as evil. He's probably more towards chaotic.

Paladin Bob comes by all holy and mighty, and they both ding as evil. Because they are both level 1 commoners, they both ding as the same power of evil. They don't even have an aura, so he has to actually spend X number of rounds before he figures it out.

Because they are evil, should Paladin Bob start meting out holy vengeance upon them? Neither are beings made of elemental evil. They didn't form out of the abyss or anything. They may very well be each a product of his own environment and upbringing. They could be suffering from a psychological disorder.

Certainly, I can understand Paladin Bob investigating further, maybe even going so far as to stake out either Fred of George to see what they get up to in their off hours. They're evil, maybe they're doing evil things. But keep in mind:

A greater victory for good is when evil is redeemed and shown the light, and opens its arms to it. If you go carving up evil people at random, are you going to be doing the world a favor? Sure, Fred probably. But George? All he does is treats his family like garbage and cheats his customers. Ought his head meet a wall spike for that?

I posit that the paladin should work to change Fred and George, instead of just cutting them into pieces.

Edit: A thought occurs to me as well, re: jurisdiction.

Easiest DM fix in the world: Make it illegal to kill evil people just for being evil. Punish crime, not outlook, and so forth.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Oh, I forgot to mention a couple technical errors I noticed in the thread too. Sorry for being "that guy."

As an SLA, a paladin's detect evil ability has neither verbal nor somatic components to pick up on. It requires enough concentration to be distracting for the paladin (provokes an AoO) but that's it. Since it also lacks any visual cues when active there's simply no way a layperson can tell when a paladin, if they could even tell one apart from a knight or a particularly valiant fighter, is using his detect evil ability except perhaps in a lingering stare.

All evil creatures, regardless of race or HD, have an aura of evil (at least in 3.5) that the detect spell can pick up on. The strength of that aura is dependent certain factors, including HD amongst others, that are not readily apparent. An evil cleric or imp of 2HD has the same aura strength as an 11HD fighter.

[SiuiS]

Paladins, in my experience, tend to fall either into that category or into "LEEEEEEEEEEEEEROY JEEEEEENKIIIIIIIIIIINS!"

That's probably selection bias. The polite but firm police force don't always register as paladins.


Well first a Paladin shouldn't have the right to Detect Evil on everyone he meets. He should have a reason, otherwise his actions violate social trust which is important in a working society.

He's a divinely mandated officer of Law and Good. Routinely 'running their plates, just in case' isn't a violation, it's their job.


Hum I guess this really depends what game you are playing. In Dnd 3.0 and 3.5, the paladin detects evil as the spell like ability. Which means he must first cast the spell (which is pretty obvious). On the first round he knows if yes or no there is an evil aura within range, second round how many auras, third where they are.

If a paladin came into my shop, cast the obvious paladin spell and stared at me for 20 seconds, I would this find very rude, whether I am evil or not.

The first round if scrutiny includes casting. Casting is noticeable in that it provokes attacks of opportunity, but the paladin could literally close their eyes, sigh, open them and look around (detect evil).


That's the thing- in D&D, having an evil alignment, does not automatically mean one is "scum".

In a world where evil is not subjective, evil is detectable like a disease, and being evil means you are directly strengthening forces which are quite possibly made of rape and torture made physically manifest and given malevolent sapience, yes it does.

The trick is that not everyone who registers as having an evil aura is evil; the sole survivor of a brutal massacre will bear that evil for a while. Someone who tolerates their abusive spouse will be tainted by evil temporarily but constantly (if the spouse is abusive enough to generate actual evil). This is the Miko dilemma. A dilemma which Miko herself screwed the pooch on.

[hamishspence]

Easiest DM fix in the world: Make it illegal to kill evil people just for being evil. Punish crime, not outlook, and so forth.

BoED took the approach that, for violence to be "acceptable" it must have both Good Intentions and Just Cause - and "having an Evil alignment" is not Just Cause, in its own right.

So - it's a DM fix - "make it immoral to kill evil people just for being evil"



In a world where evil is not subjective, evil is detectable like a disease, and being evil means you are directly strengthening forces which are quite possibly made of rape and torture made physically manifest and given malevolent sapience, yes it does.

See aforementioned Pathfinder quote:

having an evil alignment alone does not make one a super-villain or even require one to be thwarted or killed. The extent of a character's evil alignment might be a lesser evil, like selfishness, greed, or extreme vanity.

I could see most people in the D&D world not being interested in the "Cosmic Battle between Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos" despite being aligned themselves.

[GolemsVoice]

Yeah, I'd say it depends on how you define the Evil alignment in your world. If Evil means that this person actively furthers the cause of Evil, doing all the stuff we associate with that, it means that a person registering as Evil will likely be a murderer, smuggler, or any other type of criminal.

That would mean that the majority of population would be neutral, meaning they are neither particulary devoted to the cause of Good nor the cause of Evil.

In that case, the Paladin could very well investigate him, depending on what kind of person the Paladin is, and see if he can dig up anything. After all, if Evil means a great amount of evil deeds, there HAS to be something. However, this begs the question of why good governments don't just automatically scan people, and then try to sort out just what Evil people did to be so Evil.


If Evil is more of a general statement of character, it's likely that the merchant is just a jerk, a miser, beats his wife, or whatever. While all these aspects are unpleasant, and MIGHT cause the Paladin to investigate if he or she sees any direct evidence of misconduct, they are not grounds to slay him on the spot. So he might tell the merchant to treat his sevants better, for example.

In any case, if the Paladin has the time and inclination, he can at least ask around. See what other people say about him, and not only the other wealthy people, but commoners, too.

Keep in mind, however, that a Paladin is not only Good, but als Lawful, so he'd generally respect social standing. It also means not executing a person on the spot, without giving him the chance to atone or face proper trial, even IF Evil means that the person is a really bad man.

[hamishspence]

Keep in mind, however, that a Paladin is not only Good, but als Lawful, so he'd generally respect social standing. It also means not executing a person on the spot, without giving him the chance to atone or face proper trial, even IF Evil means that the person is a really bad man.

How about for Paladins of Freedom, or characters who have managed to acquire at-will magical items granting Detect Evil?


Yeah, I'd say it depends on how you define the Evil alignment in your world. If Evil means that this person actively furthers the cause of Evil, doing all the stuff we associate with that, it means that a person registering as Evil will likely be a murderer, smuggler, or any other type of criminal.

That would mean that the majority of population would be neutral, meaning they are neither particulary devoted to the cause of Good nor the cause of Evil.

In that case, the Paladin could very well investigate him, depending on what kind of person the Paladin is, and see if he can dig up anything. After all, if Evil means a great amount of evil deeds, there HAS to be something.

That sums up the issue fairly well.

Two guidelines (one for Evil is Common, one for Evil Is Fairly Rare)


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 go 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.


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.

[SiuiS]

See aforementioned Pathfinder quote:


Neither BoED nor pathfinder are core third edition. Hell, pathfinder isn't even the same game.

Ah, I am mistaken however. This is the General roleplaying area.
In which case we need to consider paladins from all walks of the game line. My faux pas.


How about for Paladins of Freedom, or characters who have managed to acquire at-will magical items granting Detect Evil?

Two guidelines (one for Evil is Common, one for Evil Is Fairly Rare)

Paladins of freedom aren't paladins, instead being a similar archetype which uses the word and the mechanical chassis to try to have cake and also eat cake. :smalltongue:

I'm poking for fun, though. While a case can be made for evil being punishable regardless of amount, a case cannot be made for assault often or even occasionally the best response.

My favorite two expressions of the paladin archetype in actual play have been a sociopathic fighter/warlock who smote people (via hideous blow) when they 'transgressed' and who used a lack of falling from grace as justification and proof. Turns out I was playing Kore from Goblins and didn't know it. The other was an incarnate tiefling who used feat shenanigans to be both a neutral evil incarnate (to keep up appearances) and a lawful neutral incarnate (the truth), who was a 300 year old officer of Law working out of the iron city of Dis.very strict, you could even say hellish, dedication to the laws, up to and including an almost perfect duplicate of the modern continuum of force in the armed forces and strict protocol on when an action was and wasn't her jurisdiction. She got caught up in the situation of being sold as a slave; she couldn't run because the owner lawfully purchased her as goods and she owed him civic duty, but the capture was unlawful and she had a duty to find and punish the slaver.

That's always more fun than "I detect evil and smite", because it puts thought into the kind of intelligent mind that would wield these powers and responsibilities without cracking.

[Mastikator]

Define 'dings as evil', please?
[snip]

Lets go with "Moderate aura of evil", an aura that is above and beyond the average d-bag aura.

[Segev]

Remember at the start of the book - when a kid is singing a carol outside his door - and Scrooge's immediate response is to rush outside with his heavy ruler to hit the kid, who promptly scarpers?

That's pretty much a Character Defining Moment for him.It's mean and grouchy, but he does not actually hurt the kid, and isn't taking sadistic glee in the kid's fear. It's grouchy neutral. He wants to be left alone, and threatening a kid with a ruler (which, at WORST, would give the well-bundled-against-the-cold child a small bruise) is the most efficient method he knows to make the kid just go away.

Consider the times, too: threatening urchins with mild (by the times' standards) beatings was actually a pretty accepted way to get them to stop being pains. I won't say I agree with it or defend it as a good practice in general, but it was hardly brutality and it wasn't cruelty. Just efficiency.

And again: the kid isn't hurt even slightly, nor was he in serious danger of even slight harm.

Scrooge is a selfish and greedy neutral person who is intensely bitter and grouchy. But he takes no pleasure in others' pain any more than he does in their pleasure. He just takes no pleasure in ANYTHING, so far as the original Dickens portrayal goes.

[GolemsVoice]

How about for Paladins of Freedom, or characters who have managed to acquire at-will magical items granting Detect Evil?

They should act more strongly or more moderately, as their personality demands. A person who is very strict about the Good aspect, but not very strict about the Lawful aspect might try to investigate or even outright punish the merchant, although this is also a question of self-preservation vs. zealotry, as society most likely would consider him a criminal, depending on how far the character goes.

Other people would likely just avoid the merchant or ignore the reading.

[hamishspence]

Scrooge is a selfish and greedy neutral person who is intensely bitter and grouchy. But he takes no pleasure in others' pain any more than he does in their pleasure. He just takes no pleasure in ANYTHING, so far as the original Dickens portrayal goes.

Maybe. It may really depend on how you interpret alignment.

I could see Scrooge being at the LE/LN border in a campaign where Evil alignment is fairly common and the least Evil of these characters, are relatively harmless to their neighbours under normal circumstances.

Roughly equivalent to:


the grasping landlord who throws granny out on the street because she's a copper behind on the rent is Lawful Evil.


Neither BoED nor pathfinder are core third edition. Hell, pathfinder isn't even the same game.

Ah, I am mistaken however. This is the General roleplaying area.
In which case we need to consider paladins from all walks of the game line. My faux pas.

The comment from the Pathfinder SRD is very similar to that from the Eberron Campaign Setting book, with respect to "not all Evil characters deserve to be attacked by adventurers".

[Scow2]

I think the big thing that protects Evil people in Society is how society is dependent on that person to function, and removing that person would cause serious collateral damage to society.

[hamishspence]

I think the big thing that protects Evil people in Society is how society is dependent on that person to function, and removing that person would cause serious collateral damage to society.

Same is probably true in the Forgotten Realms - for clerics of evil deities like Malar & Umberlee. They play a useful role - even if it's only "keeping the sea calm" or "hunting dangerous monsters" - and thus - the local rulers encourage toleration - and punish those that break the peace.

And in Greyhawk, the cult of Hextor tends to be tolerated even in Neutral cities - probably for similar reasons.

[GungHo]

I think the big thing that protects Evil people in Society is how society is dependent on that person to function, and removing that person would cause serious collateral damage to society.
Yes, the humpback whale aesop (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceWhaleAesop) is quite powerful. The players have no reason to suspect the guy is one of the Seals of the Apocalypse... and frankly I didn't know that either when I put him there, but what's life without a little capricousness and sadism?

[Segev]

I've never agreed with the "Grasping Landlord" business as being sufficient to define him as LE. He could be strictly LN; she is a copper behind, and the contract stipulates that this is what must happen. Whether LE or LN, the only incentive he has to agree to change the contract is if she can genuinely show him that she will pay off more in the future if the contract - or one like it - continues than he will get from re-selling her house to somebody else who can pay more.

It takes an element of Good to actually have the compassion to want to agree to a new, modified contract to permit her to stay in the house just to show some compassion. (And if you're not strictly Lawful, you can "let it slide" and mark the payment date as 'on time' or something.)

LE would require a step beyond in terms of selfishness and willingness to cause unfair harm. It would require that the grasping landlord see some advantage greater than abiding by the contract-as-it-stands in kicking her out, and said landlord acting in ways to inhibit her ability to pay or otherwise cause her to fall behind or fail to deliver by the deadline. LE would be the grasping landlord who is conniving to abuse the terms of the contract to TAKE the land from the old lady, rather than merely taking it because she happened to break the contract.

[Scow2]

Aye... the LE landlord isn't the guy who holds to the contract strictly - it's the guy who uses political/economic clout to seize someone else's property, or create a contract in bad faith on his side (Such as by tempting someone into a contract with a "Terms and conditions can change at any time" clause, then jacking up the rent to ruinous levels) or 'bends' the law to give a guy a chance to allegedly improve his life - then blackmail him or her with that bent law into essentially being a slave.

[hamishspence]

I've never agreed with the "Grasping Landlord" business as being sufficient to define him as LE. He could be strictly LN; she is a copper behind, and the contract stipulates that this is what must happen. Whether LE or LN, the only incentive he has to agree to change the contract is if she can genuinely show him that she will pay off more in the future if the contract - or one like it - continues than he will get from re-selling her house to somebody else who can pay more.

It takes an element of Good to actually have the compassion to want to agree to a new, modified contract to permit her to stay in the house just to show some compassion.
Complete absence of compassion is arguably Evil, not Neutral:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil

Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others

though this may apply more to "mortals" than entities like inevitables.

A case can be made that life is full of very minor acts of unthinking Evil (even if only toward "less intelligent" life - such as animals and plants) - and thus - you need that bit of extra compassion just to maintain a Neutral alignment.

Also:

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion.

[Red Fel]

And in Greyhawk, the cult of Hextor tends to be tolerated even in Neutral cities - probably for similar reasons.

They keep the trains public carriage network running on time?

[hamishspence]

Heh. More that they make honest, if somewhat thuggish, law enforcers.

[Red Fel]

Heh. More that they make honest, if somewhat thuggish, law enforcers.

You say potato, I say that tubers and all reference thereto have been banned by Public Ordinance 583-2.6, the violation of which is a capital offense; now make your peace and prepare for a slow execution. Hail Hextor.

I love Lawful Evil.

[BRC]

I've never agreed with the "Grasping Landlord" business as being sufficient to define him as LE. He could be strictly LN; she is a copper behind, and the contract stipulates that this is what must happen. Whether LE or LN, the only incentive he has to agree to change the contract is if she can genuinely show him that she will pay off more in the future if the contract - or one like it - continues than he will get from re-selling her house to somebody else who can pay more.

It takes an element of Good to actually have the compassion to want to agree to a new, modified contract to permit her to stay in the house just to show some compassion. (And if you're not strictly Lawful, you can "let it slide" and mark the payment date as 'on time' or something.)

LE would require a step beyond in terms of selfishness and willingness to cause unfair harm. It would require that the grasping landlord see some advantage greater than abiding by the contract-as-it-stands in kicking her out, and said landlord acting in ways to inhibit her ability to pay or otherwise cause her to fall behind or fail to deliver by the deadline. LE would be the grasping landlord who is conniving to abuse the terms of the contract to TAKE the land from the old lady, rather than merely taking it because she happened to break the contract.
LE need not go beyond the contract.

Lets make it a Mortgage or something. The Contract states "If you miss Three Payments, we take your farm".

Lawful Good writes up the contract in order to help the person, and may take action to help the debtor make the payments on time. They could push back the due dates, or give the debtor advice on how to save money, or buy the debtor's crops at a higher-than-normal price, ect.

Lawful Neutral writes up the contract in order to make money off the loan, like a banker. They hold the debtor to the conditions of the contract.

Lawful Evil would be somebody who wants the farm, and does what they can to make the debtor miss the payments. They need not go outside the conditions of the contract to do this. He could discourage people from buying the Farmer's crops, or include text in the contract that allows him to move up the due dates.

[hamishspence]

I could see Evil deities specifically cultivating Neutral clerics in order to "get their foot in the door" so that they can corrupt a society, a little at a time.

The clerics themselves don't do much in the way of Evil acts (besides Worship Evil Deity) do a lot of good to balance it out - but they're still "furthering the Cause" by being well behaved, and thus, producing "Innocence by Association" instead of Guilt By Association.

[SiuiS]

The comment from the Pathfinder SRD is very similar to that from the Eberron Campaign Setting book, with respect to "not all Evil characters deserve to be attacked by adventurers".

But the Eberron thing being a specific detail that differs from normal proves that standard D&D doesn't operate that way. Otherwise it wouldn't be a setting specific change.

[hamishspence]

But the Eberron thing being a specific detail that differs from normal proves that standard D&D doesn't operate that way. Otherwise it wouldn't be a setting specific change.

I figured it was more a "clarification" than a "change". An elaboration of what "evil-aligned" actually means, at minimum- since the PHB does not say what the "lower limit" is.

Changes, were things like Clerics being of any alignment, regardless of the alignment of their deity - and Always X Alignment monsters becoming Usually X Alignment.

[Segev]

LE need not go beyond the contract.

(...)

Lawful Evil would be somebody who wants the farm, and does what they can to make the debtor miss the payments. They need not go outside the conditions of the contract to do this. He could discourage people from buying the Farmer's crops, or include text in the contract that allows him to move up the due dates.That is more or less what I was driving at.

Scrooge is not doing the latter. He isn't trying to steal somebody's land through artifice of law. He's just holding them to the contract, because he wants to make money and doesn't think that he will if he doesn't hold them to it.

[hamishspence]

That is more or less what I was driving at.

Scrooge is not doing the latter. He isn't trying to steal somebody's land through artifice of law. He's just holding them to the contract, because he wants to make money and doesn't think that he will if he doesn't hold them to it.

It's possible that Scrooge is one of those characters that gets exaggerated in later depictions:


When a cold wind blows it chills you
Chills you to the bone
But there's nothing in nature that
freezes your heart
Like years of being alone
It paints you with indifference
Like a lady paints with rouge
And the worst of the worst
The most hated and cursed
Is the one that we call Scrooge
Unkind as any
And the wrath of many
This is Ebenezer Scrooge
Oh, there goes Mr. Humbug
There goes Mr. Grim
If they gave a prize for bein' mean
the winner would be him
Oh, Scrooge he loves his money
'Cause he thinks it gives him power
If he became a flavor
you can bet he would be sour
There goes Mr. Skinflint
There goes Mr. Greed
The undisputed master of
The underhanded deed
He charges folks a fortune
For his dark and drafty houses
Us poor folk live in misery
It's even worse for mouses
He must be so lonely
He must be so sad
He goes to extremes
To convince us he's bad
He's really a victim
of fear and of pride
Look close and there must be
a sweet man inside-
Naaaah! uh-uh
There goes Mr. Outrage
There goes Mr. Sneer
He has no time for friends or fun
His anger makes that clear
Don't ask him for a favor
'Cause his nastiness increases
No crust of bread for those in need
No cheeses for us meeces
There goes Mr. Heartless
There goes Mr. Cruel
He never gives
He only takes
yes that's his only rule
If bein' mean's a way of life
he's practiced and rehearsed
then all that work is paying off
'Cause Scrooge is getting worse
Every day
In every way
Scrooge is getting worse.

[Surrealistik]

A Lawful Evil lender/creditor could also draft misleading/obfuscatory, one-sided or punitive contracts that greatly benefits him at the expense of the counterparty who may be too desperate, pressured and/or ignorant to realize or appreciate their implications (the lender is doubly LE when it deliberately and specifically targets clients fitting that profile for this reason). The terms may even seem perfectly fair due to an exploited information asymmetry. In otherwords, a classic Faustian bargain. This goes on all the time in subprime financing as an example.

[Delwugor]

He's a divinely mandated officer of Law and Good. Routinely 'running their plates, just in case' isn't a violation, it's their job
Is there some specific setting or deity where Paladin's are "mandated officers"? I would agree that if the deity's directive is to "use your abilities to determine evil at will" then that is justification. The Paladin is responsible to his deity and church not necessarily local authority, laws or customs.

[hamishspence]

The Paladin is responsible to his deity and church not necessarily local authority, laws or customs.

Indeed:

Save My Game: Lawful and Chaotic (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)


Lawful does not necessarily mean "adheres to the letter of the law." A law (or body of laws) is merely a rule that a government imposes on those who are subject to its power. A lawful alignment, on the other hand, represents an orderly approach to matters of ethics and personal conduct. Most lawful characters do respect the order that the laws of the realm represent, but adherence to local ordinances is only one way of demonstrating a lawful alignment.

To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself. As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law (that) is unfair or capricious.

Being chaotic, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily mean you are incapable of adhering to the law. Though chaotic societies may seem disorderly, they exist in abundance. As a chaotic character, you are dedicated to personal and societal freedom. You pursue your dreams and don't try to put limits on your nature. You don't value consistency for its own sake; rather, you respond to every situation as you see fit without worrying about what you did before. The past is the past and the future is uncertain, so you prefer to live in the present. Each situation is new, so planning and procedures are pointless -- in fact, they restrain people from reacting quickly and decisively. You don't get tied up in exclusive relationships because they could hold you back from your destiny -- which might be right around the corner. You are always ready to try new techniques because you believe that experience is the best teacher, and you are always open to discovery.

In short, good and evil describe a character's ideals, and law and chaos describe the means she uses to work toward her goals. The law of the land in any given place is most likely designed to promote social order, so in general terms, lawful characters are more likely to respect it than chaotic characters are. However, the content of the law matters much more than its mere existence.

Solution 1: Laws and the PC

Any character might fear the consequences of breaking a local law, especially when the authorities rule with an iron hand. Very few characters, however, should make important decisions based solely on the legality of the choices. For a lawful good character such as a paladin, achieving goals in the right way -- that is, in a way that promotes the general welfare and doesn't unnecessarily imperil others -- is the most important consideration. For a chaotic character, the most expedient action is generally the most appropriate one, whether or not it is legal. A chaotic good character takes pains to ensure that others are not harmed by his actions, but a chaotic neutral or chaotic evil one cares about little besides personal convenience.

Solution 2: The Paladin's Code

Now let's address the question of how the paladin's code of conduct governs her actions. A paladin is both lawful and good, and she must uphold both aspects of her alignment. Thus, if the laws in a particular realm are corrupt and evil, she is under no obligation to obey them.

[SiuiS]

Is there some specific setting or deity where Paladin's are "mandated officers"? I would agree that if the deity's directive is to "use your abilities to determine evil at will" then that is justification. The Paladin is responsible to his deity and church not necessarily local authority, laws or customs.


Yes and no. There's no requisite connection between paladins and any church, religion, or hierarchy.

The paladin class contains, in and of itself, divine authority. Regardless of backing, paladins are enforcers, champions, authorities, invested with Law and Good (usually, with a nod to catpike), and that's part of their class.

Paladins are the one class in dungeons and dragons given implicit Player Fiat. It's the one class that has something the DM can't deny as far as hard-naked motive and power. It's also the class that has the clearest interface into society – paladins are widely known and acknowledged as paragons of justice and virtue in game even if they're stick-in-the-ass pretentious assassins with a chip on their shoulder as far as players are concerned. They're respected, they're known for doing good at great sacrifice, and they don't lie. If anyone can walk into the temple of Athena, and say "give me the aegis which bears medusa's face, I'll bring it back in a week" and actually get it, it's the paladin. If there's anyone peasants will listen to instead of panicking and rioting, it's the paladin. If there's anyone who can speak with divine authority and have that weight to back it up, it's the paladin. And unlike any other class, even the cleric, the paladin's hard-coded class features back this up and enable it. Clerics lie. Clerics don't have stable reputations. Clerics don't worship gods all the time and when they do, they don't always worship anything worth respecting. Paladins don't have a god in the way. Paladins are empowered by goodness itself, tempered by law, no anthropomorphic creature with an agenda in the way.

That is subtle but powerful. It's also why people intrinsically polarize around the paladin, it is definitely unique amongst D&D classes. Unfortunately, this draws people who want to use and abuse that player fiat. And that's where stick in the mud paladins come from.

[veti]

It's possible that Scrooge is one of those characters that gets exaggerated in later depictions:

That is definitely the case. To Dickens, there's no real indication that he's any more than an unusually heartless moneylender and miser - his only real crime being 'heartlessness', although to be fair, the depicted trait is pretty extreme.

But in later adaptations, he gets worse. Sometimes he takes pleasure in throwing people out of their homes (at Christmas, i.e. midwinter, no less). Other times, it's hinted that he has a finger in altogether nastier pies, although these are never spelled out. (E.g. for all we know, he may be part-owner of a slave ship, which would be quite illegal but not unheard-of in 1843.)

[hamishspence]

That is definitely the case. To Dickens, there's no real indication that he's any more than an unusually heartless moneylender and miser - his only real crime being 'heartlessness', although to be fair, the depicted trait is pretty extreme.

But in later adaptations, he gets worse. Sometimes he takes pleasure in throwing people out of their homes (at Christmas, i.e. midwinter, no less). Other times, it's hinted that he has a finger in altogether nastier pies, although these are never spelled out.

Perhaps a bit on the "loan shark" end of the moneylending spectrum?

Ross Kemp's "modern Scrooge" in an ITV Christmas special a few years back, was of this kind.

[Slipperychicken]

That is more or less what I was driving at.

Scrooge is not doing the latter. He isn't trying to steal somebody's land through artifice of law. He's just holding them to the contract, because he wants to make money and doesn't think that he will if he doesn't hold them to it.

I could see pre-epiphany Scrooge falling somewhere around NE or TN. He displays callous indifference to the suffering of others, lives his life in a relatively consistent manner, but doesn't seem to adhere to moral principles beyond the pursuit of gain.

[hamishspence]

I could see pre-epiphany Scrooge falling somewhere around NE or TN. He displays callous indifference to the suffering of others, lives his life in a relatively consistent manner, but doesn't seem to adhere to moral principles beyond the pursuit of gain.

It's possible that he might fit into the "Type 1 NE" archetype here:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeutralEvil

Essentially, this is anyone who would be a True Neutral if not for the lack of conscience or empathy, or their practice of putting either aside to further their own ends.

[veti]

Perhaps a bit on the "loan shark" end of the moneylending spectrum?

Yep, I think that would be taken for granted in Dickens' time. The only kind of moneylenders there were - were those who would charge interest that we would consider extreme.

(Well, there were also reputable bankers - but those were really more like 'venture capitalists' in today's terms, and would never even consider lending money to the likes of Scrooge's clients.)

And in penalty for non-payment - OK, a Scrooge probably wouldn't kneecap you, but he would take away your possessions up to and including the tools of your trade, without which you'd starve. So pretty evil, I'd say.

[GolemsVoice]

The clerics themselves don't do much in the way of Evil acts (besides Worship Evil Deity) do a lot of good to balance it out - but they're still "furthering the Cause" by being well behaved, and thus, producing "Innocence by Association" instead of Guilt By Association.

But wouldn't putting up a facade to help an evil deity be a huge evil act in itself, even if you don't do anything else? Because you're constantly deceiving people. If the clerics are doing it willingly and are not just deluded.

Also, at least in standard D&D, paladins are literaly chosen by the gods, as far as I remember. So while you can train to become a paladin, in the end you get your powers from gods. Which isn't really civil authority, but a solid backing, because a god basically says "this dude is really righteous and does Good's bidding on earth".

[Delwugor]

Yes and no. There's no requisite connection between paladins and any church, religion, or hierarchy.

The paladin class contains, in and of itself, divine authority. Regardless of backing, paladins are enforcers, champions, authorities, invested with Law and Good (usually, with a nod to catpike), and that's part of their class.
Thanks SiuiS, I was hoping there was something specific that could be used as a judgement guide.
Sounds like there is nothing concrete unless specified by the deity and/or setting. Which puts it back into a GM judgement call.

[Nerd-o-rama]

It's possible that Scrooge is one of those characters that gets exaggerated in later depictions:

Thanks, now that's going to be stuck in my head all day.

[SiuiS]

Thanks SiuiS, I was hoping there was something specific that could be used as a judgement guide.
Sounds like there is nothing concrete unless specified by the deity and/or setting. Which puts it back into a GM judgement call.

Mm, how so? The point is that nothing in the paladin changes when you move around deity or setting – they are definitely specific and come come packaged with right to act. Unless you were looking for a definition of evil in the paladin descriptions?

[Delwugor]

Mm, how so? The point is that nothing in the paladin changes when you move around deity or setting – they are definitely specific and come come packaged with right to act.
A Paladin should change significantly depending on the deity, even within the same setting.
For example a Paladin of Heironeous would approach situations according to his deity, he is the "paragon" and often an "enforcer". In this case I can see the "divine officer" analogy.
But a Paladin of Pelor would likely handle situations differently, I see more of leading by example than a "paragon", but when needed will whip out the can of Smite Evil.

[SiuiS]

A Paladin should change significantly depending on the deity, even within the same setting.
For example a Paladin of Heironeous would approach situations according to his deity, he is the "paragon" and often an "enforcer". In this case I can see the "divine officer" analogy.
But a Paladin of Pelor would likely handle situations differently, I see more of leading by example than a "paragon", but when needed will whip out the can of Smite Evil.

So basically the paladin should just be a cleric?

I mean, custom powers, rules, positions and abilities based on deity? Servant of deity? That's literally what cleric offers.

[Red Fel]

So basically the paladin should just be a cleric?

I mean, custom powers, rules, positions and abilities based on deity? Servant of deity? That's literally what cleric offers.

It's a different mentality.

A Cleric is, to varying degrees, a servant of a deity. A supplicant, and an embodiment of that deity's various virtues.

A Paladin is more of an enforcer. Their role is an explicitly more martial one. Whereas Clerics can represent many aspects of their deity, the Paladin represents specifically the deity's fist or outstretched hand. They are their deity's strength, his physical will made manifest, a living symbol of the power of their deity.

There is obviously some overlap, particularly with more martial deities like Heironeous. But the difference is diversity. A Cleric of Pelor can be many things, in many ways. He may be open or secretive, warm-hearted or hot-headed, tending to the weak or banishing the undead. And while a Paladin may vary in terms of personality, there are aspects of the Paladin which are constant from one to the next - his uprightness, his integrity, his pillar of strength. Yes, a Paladin of Pelor may tend to the downtrodden or smite the unholy, same as a Cleric; but he is meant to be seen doing so, to be recognized as an aspiration, what people should aim to resemble.

Earlier in the thread (or possibly another thread, these tend to blur together) someone remarked on the fact that you can't always trust a Cleric, but you can always trust a Paladin. In a sense, that consistency is what makes them distinct - they are the McHolyWarrior, every Paladin you meet should have certain virtues common to other Paladins. They're not all clones, but a Paladin is a brand, and when played well, it is a symbol that people recognize.

Another comment (again, in this thread or another) was that Paladins are essentially a prestige class. I happen to agree. I think the Prestige Paladin works better as a class than the Paladin core-class. Basically, the PrPal eliminates the blur between Cleric and Paladin - of which there is more than a little - by making explicit that a Paladin is basically a specialized Cleric.

As an aside, Paladins can be unaffiliated with a deity, instead representing their Code or alignment. That's fine, and I happen to think it works just as well. But let's not forget that a Cleric can also represent an ideal rather than a deity. So that's not a distinction between the two.

[AMFV]

Yes and no. There's no requisite connection between paladins and any church, religion, or hierarchy.

The paladin class contains, in and of itself, divine authority. Regardless of backing, paladins are enforcers, champions, authorities, invested with Law and Good (usually, with a nod to catpike), and that's part of their class.

Paladins are the one class in dungeons and dragons given implicit Player Fiat. It's the one class that has something the DM can't deny as far as hard-naked motive and power. It's also the class that has the clearest interface into society – paladins are widely known and acknowledged as paragons of justice and virtue in game even if they're stick-in-the-ass pretentious assassins with a chip on their shoulder as far as players are concerned. They're respected, they're known for doing good at great sacrifice, and they don't lie. If anyone can walk into the temple of Athena, and say "give me the aegis which bears medusa's face, I'll bring it back in a week" and actually get it, it's the paladin. If there's anyone peasants will listen to instead of panicking and rioting, it's the paladin. If there's anyone who can speak with divine authority and have that weight to back it up, it's the paladin. And unlike any other class, even the cleric, the paladin's hard-coded class features back this up and enable it. Clerics lie. Clerics don't have stable reputations. Clerics don't worship gods all the time and when they do, they don't always worship anything worth respecting. Paladins don't have a god in the way. Paladins are empowered by goodness itself, tempered by law, no anthropomorphic creature with an agenda in the way.

That is subtle but powerful. It's also why people intrinsically polarize around the paladin, it is definitely unique amongst D&D classes. Unfortunately, this draws people who want to use and abuse that player fiat. And that's where stick in the mud paladins come from.

That's actually mistaken, as far as non-3.5 Paladins go, there are explicitly orders, and you are explicitly supposed to be given mandates by your superiors. In fact there was a kit that was specifically designed to avoid this The Knight-Errant, whose benefit was that they got orders... less often.

The divine gift folks are a sort-of new invention, and the separation from religious orders is kind of a 3.5 thing, where they go significantly out of their way to separate the divine from religion.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I'd keep this going for awhile. It would turn out he was framed. A misdirection was cast on the shopkeeper (and a number of other public officials, for that matter) by a conspiracy specifically designed to see how much time they could waste for every paladin that entered town. The tweeeist would be that the cabal responsible for the misdirections is a CG group of privacy advocates.

No that be a Chaotic Evil group of privacy advocates because they are putting innocent lives at risk for there own ends by recklessly using magic to make people radiate evil auras.


Yep, I think that would be taken for granted in Dickens' time. The only kind of moneylenders there were - were those who would charge interest that we would consider extreme.

(Well, there were also reputable bankers - but those were really more like 'venture capitalists' in today's terms, and would never even consider lending money to the likes of Scrooge's clients.)

And in penalty for non-payment - OK, a Scrooge probably wouldn't kneecap you, but he would take away your possessions up to and including the tools of your trade, without which you'd starve. So pretty evil, I'd say.

The money lenders of those days were largely pawnbrokers. The possessions would be things the borrower put up as collateral.

[hamishspence]

No that be a Chaotic Evil group of privacy advocates because they are putting innocent lives at risk for there own ends by recklessly using magic to make people radiate evil auras.
I could see even Lawful Good people doing it - but only on themselves- as part of a "Test of character" for a paladin.

Using Planar Motes, from Complete Scoundrel.

[Telok]

I could see even Lawful Good people doing it - but only on themselves- as part of a "Test of character" for a paladin.

Using Planar Motes, from Complete Scoundrel.

Nystul's Magic Aura (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicAura.htm) can pull it off. A 3rd level CN caster trying to teach paladins to think before they smite can make several gold coins each day that detect as Darkskulls or Robes of Bones and last for 3 days.

[hamishspence]

I think the difference would be - the item rather than the whole person, would glow in "the paladin's vision" whereas Planar Motes specifically cause the person to "glow in vision".

[Telok]

I think the difference would be - the item rather than the whole person, would glow in "the paladin's vision" whereas Planar Motes specifically cause the person to "glow in vision".

Depending on your goals and resources it's a toss up. The spell will be free and the coins essentially untraceable, but it will only catch paladins that don't spend all three rounds concentrating (of course if the target moves out of the cone the paladin has to restart the scan). The motes are 600 gold each every 1.2 months, heavily dependent on availability (couldn't find info on that easily) and easily identifiable. Further I don't know how strong an aura the motes give, the two items I listed both radiate as moderate auras and a Nine Lives Stealer sword radiates a strong aura. Alternately if you read the spell as able to give an evil aura directly (instead of duplicating the aura of a magic item) then the caster can use his own CL to set the aura strength.

The spell is cheaper and more subtle, it will only catch paladins that scan for two rounds. The motes are costly and identifiable or possibly traceable, they catch a three round scan but may or may not have a strong enough aura.

[hamishspence]

I know Planar Motes come in two strengths, at least- possibly Moderate and Strong respectively.

[Meth In a Mine]

Of course, people have widely varying experiences.

Still, it is widely agreed on this boards that the "indiscriminately slaughter everybody who pings evil" is one of the worst ways to play a paladin.

*cough*:miko:*cough*

[hamishspence]

*cough*:miko:*cough*

It's already been argued earlier that Miko does not exactly fit "kill everyone that pings as evil on sight"


Miko was perfectly Lawful Good... or would have been if she wasn't self-deluded into believing she was always right. The closest she came to "Attack on Sight" was when she attacked a known band of terrorists who were confirmed to have murdered several people, brutalized innocent Lawful Good creatures, mistreated animals, (And, in a case of understandable mistaken identity) abused and violated a shopkeeper, AND were confirmed to deliberately and knowingly weaken the fabric of the universe. Even then, she had the presence of mind to confirm that the party leader was indeed Evil before moving to strike... and as soon as she realized there WERE mistakes, she was open to negotiating and bringing the party along peacefully.

Oh yeah, she also attacked a pair of bandits who she tried to negotiate with to find her quarry... but only reacted with lethal force AFTER they attacked her first (because she refused to submit to their slavery), and she sought to destroy an unrepentant, psychotic murderer who had slain and desecrated the corpse of a Lawful Good guard
While she did use the phrase "They were Evil, so I killed them" of her past victims:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html

the implication is that detection alone was not enough for her.

[SiuiS]

It's a different mentality.

A Cleric is, to varying degrees, a servant of a deity. A supplicant, and an embodiment of that deity's various virtues.

A Paladin is more of an enforcer. Their role is an explicitly more martial one. Whereas Clerics can represent many aspects of their deity, the Paladin represents specifically the deity's fist or outstretched hand. They are their deity's strength, his physical will made manifest, a living symbol of the power of their deity.

I dunno. Out of all the servants of all the gods, the cleric gets heavy armor and enough combat training for medium BaB. You can certainly choose to fluff a cleric as a servitor, but they've always been martial champions in plate, bearing the will of their god and even implicitly punished by losing powers when they violate strictures of the religion.


That's actually mistaken, as far as non-3.5 Paladins go, there are explicitly orders, and you are explicitly supposed to be given mandates by your superiors. In fact there was a kit that was specifically designed to avoid this The Knight-Errant, whose benefit was that they got orders... less often.

The divine gift folks are a sort-of new invention, and the separation from religious orders is kind of a 3.5 thing, where they go significantly out of their way to separate the divine from religion.

There were no kits in 1e, though. I don't remember the older info, alas. And these orders didn't change any of the mechanics of the class. You were supposed to have superiors, in the same way that all wizards were supposed to have masters they apprenticed under.

[Red Fel]

I dunno. Out of all the servants of all the gods, the cleric gets heavy armor and enough combat training for medium BaB. You can certainly choose to fluff a cleric as a servitor, but they've always been martial champions in plate, bearing the will of their god and even implicitly punished by losing powers when they violate strictures of the religion.

Oh, I agree in a sense. Clerics can definitely be the red right hand of holy (or unholy) vengeance, and in many instances they'll do a better job of it than Paladins.

But the key word, I think, is "can." There are many ways in which a Cleric can serve his patron, not all of them martial. This varies not only by deity, but by individual Cleric. Paladins are a more rigidly designed chassis, both in terms of crunch and in terms of fluff; they have fewer options in how they can serve.

That's the focal point, for me. The Cleric of a deity is a symbol of his deity. The Paladin is a symbol of his deity and of Paladins. Paladins aren't uniform, but approach it more readily than Clerics do.

[AMFV]

I dunno. Out of all the servants of all the gods, the cleric gets heavy armor and enough combat training for medium BaB. You can certainly choose to fluff a cleric as a servitor, but they've always been martial champions in plate, bearing the will of their god and even implicitly punished by losing powers when they violate strictures of the religion.



There were no kits in 1e, though. I don't remember the older info, alas. And these orders didn't change any of the mechanics of the class. You were supposed to have superiors, in the same way that all wizards were supposed to have masters they apprenticed under.

Yes, which sustains my point, they were politically motivated with superiors. The idea of spontaneous divinely empowered Paladins isn't present in that system, which would mean that they might be completely within their bounds (I would suggest that they are) to be constantly vigilant for evil. Of course I don't think pinging evil is a smite worthy thing, but it might inspire further scrutiny.

[Erik Vale]

Skipping to the end for a Quick thought.
Detect Evil detects lingering auras. If RAW is follower then [to my knowledge] 1/3 human people are evil. And therefore are leaving lingering auras [for average evil joe, they leave a fog/trail that is detectable from 1d6 rounds away] I may be miss-reading [it may be the fog exists only on death].

Noting this, wouldn't a Paladin with detect evil, upon turning it one, detect a... 'faint fog' of evil blanketing the town/city etc? Similarly so if you had some other class using detect good/law/chaos.
Also, excellent tracking tool if your within 1d6 rounds/minutes of the BBEG [assuming not a death only thing].

[hamishspence]

If RAW is follower then [to my knowledge] 1/3 human people are evil.

For Eberron, there's WoTC online articles that stress that this is the case.

For other settings, it's less clear, and there is much debate on the subject. The PHB both says that "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral", and puts the "typical" alignment for Humans as True Neutral, with the box diagram.

[Erik Vale]

For Eberron, there's WoTC online articles that stress that this is the case.

For other settings, it's less clear, and there is much debate on the subject. The PHB both says that "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral", and puts the "typical" alignment for Humans as True Neutral, with the box diagram.

If they 'tend' towards no alignment, then there is no difference in the percentage of alignments.
If all people we're TN, then it would be 100% N, 0% Chaos/Law/Good/Evil.
That's a clear tendency towards neutral. Therefore PHB supports the Eberron standpoint. However I haven't read the related arguments.

Also, one evil person walking in a line would leave a 'wall of evil' all those good people are hiding behind [assuming my previous reading was right, but I'm doubting it more and will be dropping it past this post]... Lost class features in 3, 2, 1...

[SiuiS]

Oh, I agree in a sense. Clerics can definitely be the red right hand of holy (or unholy) vengeance, and in many instances they'll do a better job of it than Paladins.

But the key word, I think, is "can." There are many ways in which a Cleric can serve his patron, not all of them martial. This varies not only by deity, but by individual Cleric. Paladins are a more rigidly designed chassis, both in terms of crunch and in terms of fluff; they have fewer options in how they can serve.

That's the focal point, for me. The Cleric of a deity is a symbol of his deity. The Paladin is a symbol of his deity and of Paladins. Paladins aren't uniform, but approach it more readily than Clerics do.

Hmm. I feel I can still argue this, but the wording is set up so I would have to contradict myself to do so. Kudos! That probably means I'm wrong.

There are other, similar ways to play a paladin (post TSR), though. The only way to judge intent is before TSR went under, but discount kits as they were an optional rule. This leaves both the paladin and the cleric fulfilling the same niche of heavily armored pious crusader, with the cleric caring about being a representative of their god and the paladin caring about beig a paladin.


Yes, which sustains my point, they were politically motivated with superiors. The idea of spontaneous divinely empowered Paladins isn't present in that system, which would mean that they might be completely within their bounds (I would suggest that they are) to be constantly vigilant for evil. Of course I don't think pinging evil is a smite worthy thing, but it might inspire further scrutiny.

Then we have crossed each other; the existence of fluff-based orders doesn't change my point at all. It's not the existence or nonexistence of orders and churches and hierarchies, it's that they don't change the Class (mechanical construct) at all, and the mechanical construct is consistent across most paladin applications such that there are certain obvious and extrapolate me emergent properties. One of these being the implied authority.


Skipping to the end for a Quick thought.
Detect Evil detects lingering auras. If RAW is follower then [to my knowledge] 1/3 human people are evil. And therefore are leaving lingering auras [for average evil joe, they leave a fog/trail that is detectable from 1d6 rounds away] I may be miss-reading [it may be the fog exists only on death].

Noting this, wouldn't a Paladin with detect evil, upon turning it one, detect a... 'faint fog' of evil blanketing the town/city etc? Similarly so if you had some other class using detect good/law/chaos.
Also, excellent tracking tool if your within 1d6 rounds/minutes of the BBEG [assuming not a death only thing].

Yep!

[AMFV]

Then we have crossed each other; the existence of fluff-based orders doesn't change my point at all. It's not the existence or nonexistence of orders and churches and hierarchies, it's that they don't change the Class (mechanical construct) at all, and the mechanical construct is consistent across most paladin applications such that there are certain obvious and extrapolate me emergent properties. One of these being the implied authority.


Well it does, at least as far as AD&D goes, there are certainly expected superiors, since all Paladins have them (even the Knight-Errants) we assume that there is a social construct that Paladins answer to, which gives them certain social responsibilities.

[SiuiS]

Well it does, at least as far as AD&D goes, there are certainly expected superiors, since all Paladins have them (even the Knight-Errants) we assume that there is a social construct that Paladins answer to, which gives them certain social responsibilities.

But none of that changes Paladin class features or book text, from which the basis I am workin on is derived. It certainly adds to it, and I myself would reintegrate orders into my character; but the reason people feel paladins have an authority and right to act above and beyond other classes is because the paladin text gives that impression in some places and tacitly states it in others.

[hamishspence]

If they 'tend' towards no alignment, then there is no difference in the percentage of alignments.
If all people we're TN, then it would be 100% N, 0% Chaos/Law/Good/Evil.
That's a clear tendency towards neutral. Therefore PHB supports the Eberron standpoint. However I haven't read the related arguments.

I'd make TN very slightly more common (because it's "typical")- but not nearly enough to qualify as "Often neutral".

[Erik Vale]

Point still stands, it leaves roughly 1/3rd the population as evil, being people who are petty, hold grudges, tend to use intimidation, or are actual criminals who should definitely be put down.

[hamishspence]

"Actual criminal" can vary a lot - from petty thieves & pickpockets like the Artful Dodger - to vicious thugs like Bill Sikes.

The 1/3 ratio probably applies in the most "typical" cities - and across the species as a whole. Some settlements will be strongly biased to other alignments (Fiendish Codex 2 suggests that in a LE city as much as 9/10 of the population will end up in the Nine Hells after death).

[Wardog]

What does the paladin do? Obviously he can't trade with the shop owner, since that's associating with evil.

Does that count as "associating"?

I would have thought "associating" would (or at least should) mean something more like "hanging out with them while they commit evil acts" or at least "hanging out with them, knowing what they are up to, and not saying or doing anything to about it".

IMO "must avoid all non-hostile dealings with them" only makes sense if Evil really does mean "real nasty piece of work who has to be stopped ASAP, by smiting if necessary".

If Evil doesn't mean that, and includes people cheats and petty bullies, then "having no dealings with them at all, or else you risk falling" is way over the top.

[hamishspence]

The Order of Seropaeanes has both paladins and assassins - both of which are present in the same fortress, in the sample adventure.

"Being members of the same organisation" may be permissible, going by this.

After all, there's organisations with both fiends (generals of the Nine Hells) and celestials - The Regulators, from Epic Handbook.

[AMFV]

The Order of Seropaeanes has both paladins and assassins - both of which are present in the same fortress, in the sample adventure.

"Being members of the same organisation" may be permissible, going by this.

After all, there's organisations with both fiends (generals of the Nine Hells) and celestials - The Regulators, from Epic Handbook.

This is exactly why I always write Paladin codes depending on their particular deity. It makes no sense for a Jasian Paladin to not be able to work with possibly up to a third of her church.

[SoC175]

Does that count as "associating"?In Greyhawk LG paladins of Heironeus serve alongside LE blackguards of Hextor, since they have no choice as the religion is legal.

They channel their rivalry into outdoing each other on the battlfield (to great benefit to the military progress of the kingdom)