Is it evil to murder an evil character?

[Bountyhunter]

So my players are going to have to team up with an evil character in the near future if they are going stop a much greater evil. I imagine they are going to work with him to an extent but I'm curious what to do if they kill him, in regards to alignment. The evil character is not going to betray them or fight them in any way so any hostilities would have to be initiated by the party.
So my questions are in short...

Is killing a non-hostile evil character considered evil?
Is betraying an evil person considered evil if they were not going to betray you?
Do you think a good cleric would need to atone for this betrayal?
Do you think this would cause an alignment shift?

Lastly as food for thought, what if the evil npc was instead a neutral character who performed evil deeds?

Any other thoughts regarding this are welcome.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Maybe; Yes; Yes; No.

[illyahr]

Yes; depends on what they want you to do; depends on their deity; no

For the optional question: same as above

The target of the act doesn't determine if the act is good or evil. The act itself is what makes it good or evil. Ask yourself: what would this act be considered if I didn't know the target's alignment?

[Geddy2112]

Is killing a non-hostile evil character considered evil?
Could be, really depends on the circumstances. I lean towards no, but it would need more information than that.



Is betraying an evil person considered evil if they were not going to betray you?
Depends-betrayal is generally more of a law/chaos thing than a good evil thing. If the betrayal causes their harm, then yes it is evil.



Do you think a good cleric would need to atone for this betrayal?
Depends. If the betrayal was not literally stabbing them in the back or similar violence, it leans more into the law/chaos realm. So a LG cleric would need to more than a CG cleric. It also depends on their deity's tenants. Some deities are much more accepting of betrayal and "doing bad things to evil people is a good thing".


Do you think this would cause an alignment shift?
No, a single action should never cause an alignment shift unless it is pretty major, like blowing up a city major.


Lastly as food for thought, what if the evil npc was instead a neutral character who performed evil deeds?
If they perform enough evil deeds, they won't be neutral.

[Red Fel]

Two things before we begin.

First, in response to your initial question: Implicit in the word "murder," as opposed to the word "kill," is the idea that the action is Evil. There's a lot of killing in D&D, not all of it Evil, but murder tends to be a bit less ambiguous.

Second, I'm going to assume, when you say "evil character," that you mean a normal person, and not, say, an Evil Outsider or Undead. These are two special categories of creature that WotC has decided are unambiguously Evil, and 100% a-ok to kill in any way you see fit, at any time. I'm going to assume you mean a normal character that happens to be Evil, as opposed to a creature possessing the Evil subtype or similar tag that tells heroes where to stab.

Moving on to your questions.


Is killing a non-hostile evil character considered evil?

Generally, I'd say yes. With the exception of an execution, which is generally a Neutral action on the G-E spectrum, killing someone who means you no harm is decidedly non-Good. Now, if this creature poses a probable future threat, it's not necessarily Evil to kill him, but it's certainly non-Good. If he poses no visible threat, now or in the future, then killing him just because of his alignment is decidedly Evil.

Now, here's a possible exception - what if he just did something exceedingly heinous? Well, you're within rights to stop him, even if he's not hostile towards you. What if he's already done? You're within rights to apprehend him. Heck, if you're close enough to the action, you might kill him out of righteous indignation. But unless you catch him gloating over the orphanage he just finished burning down, it's probably still Evil to kill him.


Is betraying an evil person considered evil if they were not going to betray you?

Probably. Betrayal of a loyal friend is decidedly non-Good. The level of betrayal may be Neutral, or even Evil, depending on context. Note also that betrayal implicates the C-L spectrum.


Do you think a good cleric would need to atone for this betrayal?

If the act was Evil, atonement is appropriate.


Do you think this would cause an alignment shift?

Isolated actions rarely cause alignment shifts, unless they are exceptionally egregious. A noble shining hero who tells one lie will not suffer an alignment shift. A noble shining hero who commits genocide will drop like a stone. A single betrayal, even a severe one, is unlikely to cause an alignment shift.


Lastly as food for thought, what if the evil npc was instead a neutral character who performed evil deeds?

I don't see how it makes a difference. "Because he was Evil" isn't a justification for murder; "Because he was Neutral" isn't, either.

[Ghen]

It seems you need to plumb the depths of the book of exalted cheese, my friend.

My reading of it suggests that killing is only "good" when, A: It is done to protect something/someone, who also is ideally good, or at least not evil, and B: when it is the last possible method of said protection. Even the evil jerk who just burned down an orphanage "should" be converted, or given to the authorities (more lawful than good) or something to that effect rather than just outright killed.

[marphod]

Alignment isn't an absolute thing. it is an abstraction, nothing more. You can't make any hard and fast statements about alignment that are always true.

In general, Murder is an evil act. Who you are killing has (usually) very little to do with the Good/Evil measure of the act. Circumstances can make this fuzzier -- are they armed? Are they aware of the attack coming? Is there a state of war or otherwise open hostilities? Has a recognized legal and moral authority authorized extreme acts against them? (Or does the character believe any of these are true, even if they are not?)

And some moral structures are more flexible than others. For some systems, killing one person to save many is a morally righteous act, even if the person killed is in cold blood. In other systems, it isn't. DnD allows for all sorts of moral systems, so this point of view is sometimes valid.


In general, betraying someone is a chaotic act. Betraying someone such that it causes them harm is often, but not always, evil. In the act of betrayal, what did you do the evil person? What was their goals? Were they not going to betray you, no matter your actions, or only as long as you had shared goals? Did the betrayal stop a larger evil? Were you breaking an explicit oath or an implied trust?

Atonement is only required if the act was against their god's tenants and requires the character actually be repentant. The first is a DM call, the second is an IC behavior thing.

very few single acts should result in an alignment change. (being raised as an undead creature. that may be it). Spontaneous`, out-of-the-ordinary acts are a sign of mental instability, not necessarily evil. (An otherwise good mage fireballs an orphanage). Otherwise, it may be the first overt act, but that wizard may have been slowly building up resentment or anger and aggression towards the kids and treating them poorly, and has been slowly falling for a while.

[Chronos]

The standard example of this is a paladin who uses Detect Evil in the tavern, and then kills the bartender because he shows up under the ability. This is an evil act, and should cause the paladin to fall, because "evil" is not synonymous with "needs killing". Unfortunately, many players are under the mistaken impression that this is not only allowed for a paladin, but actually required, which ends up leading to a lot of the hatred towards paladins.

[noob]

Killing something sentient(3 or more int or something able to do think(sometimes it just happens)) make you chaotic evil instantly no matter why and how you kill him(but if you was not conscious of it or willing and then that you feel great pain from it you might get a chance of penitence and get to stay one of those shiny and kind lawful evil paladin of tyranny)

[Nifft]

Is killing a non-hostile evil character considered evil?
Is betraying an evil person considered evil if they were not going to betray you?
Do you think a good cleric would need to atone for this betrayal?
Do you think this would cause an alignment shift?

Lastly as food for thought, what if the evil npc was instead a neutral character who performed evil deeds?
- Smiting Evil during a surprise round is not Evil.
- Smiting Evil pro-actively is not Evil.
- Nope. Not unless the Cleric had sworn some kind of oath, and he was betraying the oath.
- Nope. Well, probably nope.

- Maybe. There is no Smite Neutral in the core books. Killing a non-hostile non-evil person sounds kinda evil. That might cause an Atonement scenario.

The main focus of Good has always been killing things and taking their stuff.
If you kill someone without taking their stuff, you might be an Assassin, and that's evil.
If you take someone's stuff without killing them, you might be a Thief, and that's not particularly good.

So play it safe. If you must kill, always remember to loot.

[Xuldarinar]

Might as well contribute to the discussion.


Is killing a non-hostile evil character considered evil?

An evil act is an evil act, regardless to what end or whom it is used against, so the question needs rephrased for the answer.

Is killing someone an evil act?


Is betraying an evil person considered evil if they were not going to betray you?

Again, an evil act is an evil act, regardless to what end or whom it is used against, so the question needs rephrased for the answer.

Is betrayal, in of itself, an evil act?


Do you think a good cleric would need to atone for this betrayal?

Deity, setting, and betrayal pending. I would say that, for instance, a lawful deity would generally have a dimmer view of betrayal than a chaotic deity.


Do you think this would cause an alignment shift?

I believe it should count towards a shift to some degree, but it shouldn't in of itself cause an alignment shift. Though, that depends upon the betrayal in of itself.

[Telonius]

For the betrayal ... it depends on what, exactly, is being betrayed. If the character tells you, "Promise not to tell anyone, but I'm going to burn down the orphanage," and you rat him out to the local Paladin? That would definitely be Good, and arguably Lawful Good.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

The ideal Good thing to do would be to try to take advantage of a situation where an Evil character is working with you against more Evil and definitely won't betray you to nudge or perhaps push the Evil character towards Good in the best way you know how to do so (short of forcing a Helm of Opposite Alignment on him, which definitely counts as you opening the betrayal channel). That's probably the Good-est thing you can do. The intelligence of it is up for debate, but it's undeniably the Good-est.

As for your exact questions...

Non-hostile can mean a lot of things, but as a rule, yes, it's Evil to kill non-hostiles period, regardless of their alignment.

Betraying an Evil person who is helping you oppose Evil, thus quashing any opportunity you would have to convince him to see his current acts in a light other than "removing a bigger threat" and perhaps guiding him towards Good, certainly runs contrary to everything Good believes in, but I guess it depends on the exact type of betrayal whether it goes all the way to Evil. If you take advantage of his weakened state to have him arrested or whatever the equivalent would be at that character level (dead magic planar superprison, woo!), then well, you're every sort of expletive I'm not allowed to say on this site, but the act wouldn't be Evil, and might even be rather Good since you're nonlethally removing a significant threat to all that is good, righteous, fluffy, etc. (Amusingly, if you're being pro-authority enough about it, it can be something of a wash on the LC axis, since the betrayal would be Chaotic in the first place.) If you take advantage of his weakened state to kill him, then that'd be Evil unless he himself was choosing to ignore his injuries and do some Evil act that you have to stop... But you mentioned he wasn't going to betray you himself, so that's probably not what's happening.

Depends on the Cleric.

If a character was strongly of an alignment opposed to this, one betrayal wouldn't cause them to fall like a stone (though as mentioned, there are certain versions of the betrayal that cause Paladin falling). On the other hand, if the character were teetering right on the edge in one or both components of their Lawful Good alignment and killed a weakened villain who temporarily allied with them, well, then it might be enough to push them the last few inches over the line in the sand.

As mentioned, actions and potential actions are what matter here; alignment is honestly just some letters that give you an idea what the person's done in the past and what they're likely to do in the future, not the end-all be-all of decision-making.

[Nibbens]

The target of the act doesn't determine if the act is good or evil. The act itself is what makes it good or evil. Ask yourself: what would this act be considered if I didn't know the target's alignment?

This. If you poison a water supply to kill a an evil general without regard for anyone else who may be injured by your actions - you've committed an evil or neutral act, but definitely not a good one. The alignment of the person(s) you've killed have no bearing on the act.

[Ghen]

The standard example of this is a paladin who uses Detect Evil in the tavern, and then kills the bartender because he shows up under the ability. This is an evil act, and should cause the paladin to fall, because "evil" is not synonymous with "needs killing". Unfortunately, many players are under the mistaken impression that this is not only allowed for a paladin, but actually required, which ends up leading to a lot of the hatred towards paladins.

Right you are, sir. Killing evil things just because they are evil is not good, it is evil. Killing said evil things to prevent acts of orphanage burning is good.

Just as real-life people get mixed up on this, it is possible for a DM to make NPCs based on this too. Remember, most evil folks don't even realize that they are, in fact, evil. You could have some evil fighter or whatever walking from Orc settlement to Orc settlement, thinking that he's "good" because the women and elders he's axing are evil. Heck, even the children he's putting the sword to are likely to grow up evil. That makes it good, from his flawed perspective.

[ShaneMRoth]

Is killing a non-hostile evil character considered evil?





"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Killing a non-belligerent character seems to not qualify as a Good act.

It seems to me that unless this Evil person is 'innocent', then killing him is a neutral act at best. The word innocent is not defined in game... let's go to the English language definition...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocent


free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil

harmless in effect or intention

free from legal guilt or fault


I'd be very comfortable disqualifying any Evil person as innocent, in terms of game mechanics.

It seems to me that killing a non-belligerent evil character conforms best to Neutrality.

It's still a **** move.



Is betraying an evil person considered evil if they were not going to betray you?


In game terms, this NPC qualifies as Helpful. He is willing to take risks to help the PCs.

Killing a non-belligerent person with a Helpful attitude towards you (an Ally) is an evil act.

It seems to me that it shouldn't matter what another person might do in the future.

I'd be comfortable declaring a betrayal like this to be an evil act no matter who did the betraying, and no matter who was being betrayed.

Killing a non-belligerent ally seems like an evil act to me.



Do you think a good cleric would need to atone for this betrayal?

Good characters, in game terms, are expected to do 'the right thing' even when it is not necessarily in their tactical best interest.

It seems "out of character" for a Good person to be killing an evil ally out of a sense of expediency after that ally is no longer useful to the Good character.

Requiring an Atonement spell in the aftermath of this is entirely appropriate and entirely within DM discretion.



Do you think this would cause an alignment shift?


Taking this action in isolation, this seems more like an "out of character" action for a Good character rather than an action that would cause a bonefide alignment shift.

There is no formal mechanical provision in the Core Rules for alignment shifts. No single Neutral Act, or even a single Evil Act, should automatically provoke an alignment shift. Exercise of DM discretion is an affirmative necessity when adjudicating an alignment shift.

A DM is well within his discretion to make a player running a Good Cleric understand that an act like this is more likely than not to require an Atonement spell for that character.

the DM is not obliged to guarantee the player any specific mechanical outcome in response to this action one way or the other.

[Crake]

Right you are, sir. Killing evil things just because they are evil is not good, it is evil. Killing said evil things to prevent acts of orphanage burning is good.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. If someone announces that they're going to burn an orphanage in 3 days time (and you know for certain that they mean it), murdering that person is still 100% evil. Why? Because there are other ways to stop him. What you described is actually premeditated murder, which is an even higher punished crime than murders of passion (which is what the paladin detecting evil and smiting them on the spot would be). Killing is only a non-evil (though still decidedly non-good) act when it is either done in self defense, or in the defense of others.

Now, if you catch them mid act, and they brandish a weapon as they attempt to burn the orphanage down, that's a different scenario, but pre-emptive murder is still murder.

[Nifft]

It's a bit more nuanced than that. If someone announces that they're going to burn an orphanage in 3 days time (and you know for certain that they mean it), murdering that person is still 100% evil. Why? Because there are other ways to stop him. What you described is actually premeditated murder, which is an even higher punished crime than murders of passion (which is what the paladin detecting evil and smiting them on the spot would be). Killing is only a non-evil (though still decidedly non-good) act when it is either done in self defense, or in the defense of others.

Now, if you catch them mid act, and they brandish a weapon as they attempt to burn the orphanage down, that's a different scenario, but pre-emptive murder is still murder. Disagree strongly.

Walking into the lair of an Evil dragon who is asleep and Smiting its face with your Holy Avenger is not an Evil act.

Similarly, walking into the home of an Evil cleric who is asleep and Smiting his or her face with your Holy Avenger is not an Evil act... though it might be illegal, and get you in trouble. "Good" and "Legal" are not the same thing.


You seem to be limiting Evil to what I would call "Clear and Present Evil", or perhaps even "Caught in an Evil Act".

I disagree that such limits make sense in D&D, since D&D has Evil as an objective and measurable condition.

[Elkad]

Replace "murder" with "execution" and the questions suddenly become simple.

If your ruler (or deity) sentences them all to death for their crimes, that's all you need to know.

[Red Fel]

Replace "murder" with "execution" and the questions suddenly become simple.

If your ruler (or deity) sentences them all to death for their crimes, that's all you need to know.

No, not necessarily.

An execution is generally Lawful, assuming it was performed pursuant to some kind of tradition, statute, or regular procedure. But that doesn't make it Good. Plenty of tyrants have innocents executed by the score; the fact that the tyrant had the authority - even the legitimate authority - to order the execution doesn't make it Good.

[Jormengand]

Murder is chaotic. Only the circumstances of and reasons for your doing so may tell whether or not it's evil.

[Crake]

Walking into the lair of an Evil dragon who is asleep and Smiting its face with your Holy Avenger is not an Evil act.

Similarly, walking into the home of an Evil cleric who is asleep and Smiting his or her face with your Holy Avenger is not an Evil act... though it might be illegal, and get you in trouble. "Good" and "Legal" are not the same thing.

I'm not talking at all about the legality of it all. I mentioned premeditated murder as being punished more severely than murders of passion due to the fact that they are an even more heinous act, since you are actively planning an evil act, as opposed to performing one in the heat of the moment. That's why people describe it as cold-blooded murder, because you aren't heated and emotional about it. Killing anything in it's sleep ever, with the exception of maybe some undead and evil outsiders as Red Fel described, since they are unambiguously, irredeemably evil, is an evil act. Perhaps that evil dragon was extorting protection money from the local population, thus lawful evil. Well, now you killed him and the chaotic evil dragon next door moves in and razes the population to the ground. Good job.

Similarly, killing that evil cleric removes any chance of redemption for him, and as a mortal, he is totally capable of being redeemed. Killing them in their sleep when there are a myriad of other ways to handle it is the "ends justify the means" response, and you know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Sure, killing the cleric will save his future victims, good intentions, but still an evil act. You could have apprehended him, and carted him off to prison, where he would have been tried for his transgressions, and maybe had to pay restitutions etc, which would have done much more good than killing him.

Maybe you're just joking and forgot to put your post in blue, but honestly, murder is evil, there's no getting around that. Even dragons can be negotiated with.

[Nifft]

I'm not talking at all about the legality of it all. I mentioned premeditated murder as being punished more severely than murders of passion due to the fact that they are an even more heinous act, since you are actively planning an evil act, as opposed to performing one in the heat of the moment. That's why people describe it as cold-blooded murder, because you aren't heated and emotional about it. Killing anything in it's sleep ever, with the exception of maybe some undead and evil outsiders as Red Fel described, since they are unambiguously, irredeemably evil, is an evil act. Perhaps that evil dragon was extorting protection money from the local population, thus lawful evil. Well, now you killed him and the chaotic evil dragon next door moves in and razes the population to the ground. Good job. If you're too scared of responsibility or risk to perform any dangerous Good acts, that's fine. It just means you're Neutral Uncommitted. Stand aside, and let a Paladin do his job.

If more Evil shows up, we'll be here to Smite it, too. Eternal vigilance and all that.

None of us expect one Smite to fix the whole world.

We're living one Smite at a time.


Similarly, killing that evil cleric removes any chance of redemption for him, and as a mortal, he is totally capable of being redeemed. Killing them in their sleep when there are a myriad of other ways to handle it is the "ends justify the means" response, and you know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Sure, killing the cleric will save his future victims, good intentions, but still an evil act. You could have apprehended him, and carted him off to prison, where he would have been tried for his transgressions, and maybe had to pay restitutions etc, which would have done much more good than killing him. Redemption of Evil is really cool when it happens, but it is NOT the only valid response.

Smite is also a valid and well-supported response to Evil.


Maybe you're just joking and forgot to put your post in blue, but honestly, murder is evil, there's no getting around that. Even dragons can be negotiated with. Not sarcastic in the least. Potentially entertaining, hopefully even a touch witty, but not one whit sarcastic.

- - -

You're still confusing real-world legal-ish morality with D&D's black-and-white objective morality. "Murder" is a real-world legal term. "Evil" is not a legal term. You're hung up on applying real-world legal terms -- from a world where morality is invisible and unknowable -- to a fantasy world where morality can be objectively quantified.

The premeditated murder (a legal term) of an evil dictator might be an act of Good (a moral term).

This is true even if premeditated murder is usually Evil.

[Sagetim]

So my players are going to have to team up with an evil character in the near future if they are going stop a much greater evil. I imagine they are going to work with him to an extent but I'm curious what to do if they kill him, in regards to alignment. The evil character is not going to betray them or fight them in any way so any hostilities would have to be initiated by the party.
So my questions are in short...

Is killing a non-hostile evil character considered evil?
Is betraying an evil person considered evil if they were not going to betray you?
Do you think a good cleric would need to atone for this betrayal?
Do you think this would cause an alignment shift?

Lastly as food for thought, what if the evil npc was instead a neutral character who performed evil deeds?

Any other thoughts regarding this are welcome.

In order:
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes*

If the npc in question was neutral, then murdering him in cold blood is just as evil as killing an evil character in cold blood. As a good character, you need to have some evidence of some kind to justify murdering them. And it has to be more than a flimsy excuse like 'well, he stole some coins from that vendor'. Now, if you have good reason to believe that he's the BBEG in disguise and killing him will end the campaign early, you might be wrong but you will be justified. Your GM might also rule that you are starting to go off the loony end if you follow through with it, right or wrong.

Basically murder = evil. Killing evil is not an inherently good act, and pretending it is turns out to be a great way for good characters to become evil. Killing in self defense is excusable, setting up a situation where you have to aggressively defend yourself becomes more and more of an evil act the more you have premeditated it. This places 'busting the door in, killing and looting a dungeon' as a neutral act most of the time. While busting in to stop the necromancer by aggresively defending your right to life to stop his evil world ending plan is okay, even if you plan out extensively how you're going to take him on. However, once you start luring the necromancer out of his lair with promises of a nonagression pact and maybe whores, you start walking down a slippery slope towards evil town, with the population being you.

For DND references, I point to the Dragonlance campaign setting, and for a literary example, Villains By Necessity. But on the Dragonlance campaign setting, we have a series of kings who start outlawing and hunting down evil, gradually walking the zealots path and eventually leading to the gods chucking a mountain at him, taking their clerics, and going home for a while. Knowing that what you do isn't justified just because you're good and they're evil is a good way to make sure you don't turn into a zealot and take things so far that the gods get fed up with your dumb ass and drop a mountain on you.

I hope this answered your question, I will now read the rest of this thread.

Edit:
*To be specific, it would contribute to an alignment shift towards Neutral Evil. A lot of these would, actually. Because Neutral Evil is selfish and generally expedient to the detriment of others. Which includes killing them and letting the gods sort them out.

On the subject of paladins: It depends entirely on the faith. If they have been given carte blanche to murder every evil person place and thing they find, then they don't even need to obey the law, they are obeying their ridiculously zealous god and that's both their job and their calling. While they could call their god's morals into question, or maybe seek out a less douchetastic god to follow, they can literally get away with murder like this if their god tells them it's okay. That, however, is up to the DM and the setting. If the DM wants the paladin to feel free to go around killing anyone he picks up as evil as his god's work, the DM does not get to make the paladin fall for this. They can feel free to impose legal complications to this kind of thing, however. But bear in mind that the Paladin does not get put between a rock and a hard place by laws, only by the will of his god. So if it's between killing a guy because his god says so, and following the law that says you're not supposed to murder people, the Paladin can freely ignore the law of the land in favor of the word of his god. He will not fall because of the law of the land as long as he is pursuing the word of his god.

That said, I don't think any paladin is actually told outright that it's okay to murder anyone they detect as evil in any setting.

Edit 3: if you want to take out a sleeping evil cleric, use the 8th level spell from the book of exalted deeds that forces a will save vs being sent to their judgement. On a successful save, they still take 3d6 wisdom damage and are probably not about to cast any spells at you, if they're even allowed a will save (you know, being asleep and all). By doing it as an exalted spell, you are tapping into the powers of the heavens, and in so doing you are giving the DM a chance to tell you what the heavens think about that. If they are not okay with you doing that to a helpless target, then they will not let the spell succeed (though they may let the wisdom damage go through). That said, if you kept doing it for the wisdom damage, the heavens would probably send someone (or dreams) to give you a lecture about abusing heavenly powers and to stop doing it. And maybe a spanking. I dunno, but it seems like the good thing to do to give you an actual verbal warning first that you can understand.

[Rhyltran]

If you're too scared of responsibility or risk to perform any dangerous Good acts, that's fine. It just means you're Neutral Uncommitted. Stand aside, and let a Paladin do his job.

If more Evil shows up, we'll be here to Smite it, too. Eternal vigilance and all that.

None of us expect one Smite to fix the whole world.

We're living one Smite at a time.

Redemption of Evil is really cool when it happens, but it is NOT the only valid response.

Smite is also a valid and well-supported response to Evil.

Not sarcastic in the least. Potentially entertaining, hopefully even a touch witty, but not one whit sarcastic.

- - -

You're still confusing real-world legal-ish morality with D&D's black-and-white objective morality. "Murder" is a real-world legal term. "Evil" is not a legal term. You're hung up on applying real-world legal terms -- from a world where morality is invisible and unknowable -- to a fantasy world where morality can be objectively quantified.

The premeditated murder (a legal term) of an evil dictator might be an act of Good (a moral term).

This is true even if premeditated murder is usually Evil.

Except certain acts are considered evil. For example, killing someone who is helpless is considered an evil act. It doesn't matter if the person is good, evil, or neutral. In this case, that sleeping cleric? He's clearly helpless. Also in most D&D settings people aren't tried, punished, and executed based off a detect alignment spell. It is not okay to just kill someone because they pinged evil on detect alignment. If you suddenly decide "I'm going to kill all chromatic dragons because they're evil." while you might technically be right you're still committing genocide. Genocide is never good. It doesn't matter if the race as a whole is "Evil" or not.

[rmnimoc]

While murder and genocide are never good, that doesn't mean they are never Good.

That said, in most cases killing a low-level evil mortal is actively furthering the cause of evil, because that soul just went somewhere the bad guys want it to. You just beefed up the armies of the damned, so unless that individual was about to actively further the cause of evil on the mortal plane, you done goofed.

In my opinion, the answers to you questions are:

Probably, it depends on the circumstances, but murdering him just cause he pings evil isn't good, and most murder is evil. If they know or suspect that he will commit a horribly evil act like eating an orphanage or summoning an elder evil, I'd let it pass as at best neutral, but those are exceptions and not the rule.

Unless the you performed the betrayal knowing or intending for it to benefit Evil, probably not. Betrayal in and of itself is Chaotic, not Evil.

Some gods may want an atonement, others might not give a ****, and some may high five him and give him a beer. Good gods are pretty diverse and that's the kind of thing that you'll have to make a judgment call about depending on the god.

No. You can't alignment switch a player just because he killed an evil npc. If he makes a habit of it I'd have the cleric's god warn him that he's starting to slip, but a single step alignment switch is the kind of thing Pazuzu gives you a free wish for. It's hard to change your alignment and takes a lot more than just one bad act to change your afterlife.

As for the last one, it doesn't really change anything. Hell, if anything that'd make it more okay, because if he's neutral and committing evil acts you are saving his soul from the lower planes and depriving the devils and demons of a future soldier.

I'll be the first to admit my alignment views don't necessarily match everyone elses, but a larger sample size will probably help your decisions more than hurt them.

[Nifft]

Except certain acts are considered evil. For example, killing someone who is helpless is considered an evil act. It doesn't matter if the person is good, evil, or neutral.
Evil people kill for convenience, or pleasure. So it's evil to kill for convenience, or pleasure. But that does not mean all forms of killing are evil.

If what you say were true, Paladins would be prohibited from acting during a surprise round, when their targets are flat-footed.

They'd be prohibited from using the Coup de Grace action against helpless foes.

Neither of those prohibitions exist.


Also in most D&D settings people aren't tried, punished, and executed based off a detect alignment spell. That's only technically true, and that's because most people in a D&D setting aren't tried at all.

Trials are a modern luxury.


It is not okay to just kill someone because they pinged evil on detect alignment.
That's not really a relevant assertion.

All you're asserting is that Detect Evil is not always sufficient justification for surprise face-stabbing -- which is meh, because I never claimed it was the only criteria.

The point that you'd need to demonstrate in order to contradict me would be to show that there is no possible justification for surprise face-stabbing. You'd need to do more than just assert it, too: you'd need to have reasoning, arguments, and maybe some examples.

[Bountyhunter]

I'd also like opinions on this scenario. In our last session the neutral good cleric of pelor killed the familiar of an evil npc after the familiar had surrendered(It was at 0 health with no chance of escaping). His basis for killing the familiar was to cause the npc to loose experience. Would this be an evil act? (It's a bit late for me to suddenly punish the player for this but I'd like to know for future reference.)
Would the fact that the familiar had been fighting the players moments ago with the intent to kill change your answer?

[Sagetim]

Evil people kill for convenience, or pleasure. So it's evil to kill for convenience, or pleasure. But that does not mean all forms of killing are evil.

If what you say were true, Paladins would be prohibited from acting during a surprise round, when their targets are flat-footed.

They'd be prohibited from using the Coup de Grace action against helpless foes.

Neither of those prohibitions exist.

That's only technically true, and that's because most people in a D&D setting aren't tried at all.

Trials are a modern luxury.


That's not really a relevant assertion.

All you're asserting is that Detect Evil is not always sufficient justification for surprise face-stabbing -- which is meh, because I never claimed it was the only criteria.

The point that you'd need to demonstrate in order to contradict me would be to show that there is no possible justification for surprise face-stabbing. You'd need to do more than just assert it, too: you'd need to have reasoning, arguments, and maybe some examples.

I think it's safe to say that a surprise face stabbing is not objectively a good action. It may be expedient, it may be prudent. I may have my characters do it from time to time. But it doesn't count as good (even if it feels good). You don't need to prove that a surprise face stabbing has no possible justification, there's a justification out there that fits some set of circumstances, and probably more than one justification and probably more than one set of circumstances. The question you need to ask is 'does it promote a good society to do it.' And the answer is usually no. Because when you surprise face stab the guy, especially in public or broad daylight, you are setting an example that is going to be imitated. Especially by children. If they don't know or understand the context, they may misinterpret your actions and find themselves walking a very evil path of people who will face stab because it suits them. So while there may be times when it's the best course of action (not to be confused with a good course of action) you're going to want to minimize the witnesses and any story telling of it happening to try and keep impressionable youths from replicating your act in the wrong way. You can justify to a child the act of killing an evil person with your evil smiting power in a fair fight, but if you stabbed him in the face with no warning, even with a smite, then you're going to have to try and explain that action to them. And most children aren't going to be able to get that kind of explanation until they're no longer children.


As for the example of the familiar: no, it earned it's death. Giving up like that might be something you could spare a hireling over, a mook if you will. But a loyal familiar, extension of it's master and capable of being used to deliver touch attacks against it's will? No, kill the damn thing. Sure, there's malicious intent there, but I would classify that as a neutral action at worst. You are neutralizing a threat that you cannot reasonably contain and would have to put unreasonable resources into securing. And if it was a Quasit or what have you, then it's inherently evil anyway. To link this to my above discussion, it's easy to explain to a kid that a familiar of an evil wizard is evil, and that if you're already fighting the evil wizard, killing it's familiar is an expected casualty in bringing it into a fight. But that again assumes you're not just killing the guy out of (what appears to an outside viewer to be) nowhere.

I suppose another way of putting it is: surprise attack, okay. Surprise instant death- probably sending the wrong signal. Especially if a piano is involved.

[Rhyltran]

Evil people kill for convenience, or pleasure. So it's evil to kill for convenience, or pleasure. But that does not mean all forms of killing are evil.

If what you say were true, Paladins would be prohibited from acting during a surprise round, when their targets are flat-footed.

They'd be prohibited from using the Coup de Grace action against helpless foes.

Neither of those prohibitions exist.

I can contradict you quite easily by simply pointing to the book of exalted deeds which answers some of these very questions. Killing evil characters without mercy is considered an evil act. If an evil character surrenders and you choose to outright kill them you are committing an evil act. The surprise round is irrelevant. I never claimed a paladin can't act in a surprise round but it really depends on the situation. Does he catch a bunch of cultists off guard as they're about to sacrifice an innocent to their deranged god? If so he can act without a word in order to protect the innocent person in question. Can said paladin murder the bar tender in his sleep because he pings evil? No.

Can a Paladin commit a coup de grace? That really depends on the circumstances. There's certain enemies that are considered irredeemably evil as mentioned where it's okay to do so under any circumstances but in most cases if you have a better option than simply killing the person (such as turning the enemy in to the lawful authorities) then in most cases it would be considered evil to simply off the person who has already been defeated. In D&D if you ever go with the train of thought "Well, the ends justify the means." you are most likely on the path to evil.

Note that with the bold if the person can't reasonably be brought to justice or if holding the person is simply not an option (or if it would endanger yourself, others, and those around you to even attempt to bring him in) this doesn't apply. I might be wrong but from what you're describing it really does sound like you're supporting that so long as someone is evil murder is always an okay option. It will always be a good act. Maybe I am misunderstanding your argument but I just can't wrap my head around some woman on the street pinging evil and then you proceed to smite evil her in broad daylight in front of everyone without so much an interrogation.

[Nifft]

I'd also like opinions on this scenario. In our last session the neutral good cleric of pelor killed the familiar of an evil npc after the familiar had surrendered(It was at 0 health with no chance of escaping). His basis for killing the familiar was to cause the npc to loose experience. Would this be an evil act? (It's a bit late for me to suddenly punish the player for this but I'd like to know for future reference.)
Would the fact that the familiar had been fighting the players moments ago with the intent to kill change your answer?

Keeping the familiar of an evil mage near your group is a major liability, not least because the mage has an empathic connection to the familiar, and might be able to use the familiar as a scry target.

So it's a high-risk activity. That doesn't mean you should kill it, of course, it just means that you'd need to justify endangering the lives of everyone nearby vs. the life of this evil mage's pet.

IMHO, the question to ask is: If the familiar's master were here, would you try to kill the master? The familiar ought to be treated as a part of the master, not as a separate entity, since AFAICT a familiar always acts upon its master's will.

[Nifft]

I think it's safe to say that a surprise face stabbing is not objectively a good action. Assassins do it, so yeah, it's not always objectively good. Luckily, that was never my assertion.

Paladins also do it, and it's not always objectively evil. That is my assertion.


The question you need to ask is 'does it promote a good society to do it.' And the answer is usually no. Because when you surprise face stab the guy, especially in public or broad daylight, you are setting an example that is going to be imitated. Especially by children. "When I grow up, I want to stab a Balor in the face, just like that cool guy in the armor did!"
"Eat your spinach and say your prayers, little one."

I am okay with this result.


If they don't know or understand the context, they may misinterpret your actions and find themselves walking a very evil path of people who will face stab because it suits them. I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that face-stabbing evil dragons and Balors will not harm the children's cute little souls.



I can contradict you quite easily by simply pointing to the book of exalted deeds which answers some of these very questions. Killing evil characters without mercy is considered an evil act. If an evil character surrenders and you choose to outright kill them you are committing an evil act. That book is ... not used at my table. I find it deeply flawed.

IMHO that particular rule is dumb, and like most absolute rules, it can easily be twisted to trick a Paladin into falling.

E.g.: "The Balor surrenders. It looks at the brick jailhouse and smirks."


Can a Paladin commit a coup de grace? That really depends on the circumstances. Excellent, you have just agreed that face-stabbing a helpless foe is not always evil.


I might be wrong but from what you're describing it really does sound like you're supporting that so long as someone is evil murder is always an okay option. You are wrong about my position.

I'm trying to be pretty careful about what I say, and my position is that murder is a legal term, not a moral term. It is possible for a murder to be good.

That's not at all the same position as saying, "ALL murders which follow THIS rule are Good." <-- NOT MY POSITION

As I noted above, absolute rules are very prone to abuse.

[Rhyltran]

Assassins do it, so yeah, it's not always objectively good. Luckily, that was never my assertion.

Paladins also do it, and it's not always objectively evil. That is my assertion.

"When I grow up, I want to stab a Balor in the face, just like that cool guy in the armor did!"
"Eat your spinach and say your prayers, little one."

I am okay with this result.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that face-stabbing evil dragons and Balors will not harm the children's cute little souls.


That book is ... not used at my table. I find it deeply flawed.

IMHO that particular rule is dumb, and like most absolute rules, it can easily be twisted to trick a Paladin into falling.

E.g.: "The Balor surrenders. It looks at the brick jailhouse and smirks."

Excellent, you have just agreed that face-stabbing a helpless foe is not always evil.

You are wrong about my position.

I'm trying to be pretty careful about what I say, and my position is that murder is a legal term, not a moral term. It is possible for a murder to be good.

That's not at all the same position as saying, "ALL murders which follow THIS rule are Good." <-- NOT MY POSITION

As I noted above, absolute rules are very prone to abuse.

I'm glad you cleared that up. Also I did state "If you have means to reasonably hold it." The balor in question fails that but yes. I did misunderstand your position. I think we can all agree "sometimes" a murder can be good. However, I prefer in those cases that it is more of an "Execution." rather than an actual murder.

[Sagetim]

Assassins do it, so yeah, it's not always objectively good. Luckily, that was never my assertion.

Paladins also do it, and it's not always objectively evil. That is my assertion.

"When I grow up, I want to stab a Balor in the face, just like that cool guy in the armor did!"
"Eat your spinach and say your prayers, little one."

I am okay with this result.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that face-stabbing evil dragons and Balors will not harm the children's cute little souls.


That book is ... not used at my table. I find it deeply flawed.

IMHO that particular rule is dumb, and like most absolute rules, it can easily be twisted to trick a Paladin into falling.

E.g.: "The Balor surrenders. It looks at the brick jailhouse and smirks."

Excellent, you have just agreed that face-stabbing a helpless foe is not always evil.

You are wrong about my position.

I'm trying to be pretty careful about what I say, and my position is that murder is a legal term, not a moral term. It is possible for a murder to be good.

That's not at all the same position as saying, "ALL murders which follow THIS rule are Good." <-- NOT MY POSITION

As I noted above, absolute rules are very prone to abuse.

With your position cleared up, that certainly helps things. While I can agree that, by the rules of the game, killing a being that the game defines as inherently evil can be a good act, the same cannot be said for most evil mortals. Because they (by and large) are not classed as inherently evil. Killing that nice cultist who gave kids candy as part of his master scheme to corrupt their mortal souls is going to be a hard sell for the kids...because you're trying to sell them on the idea that the candy was a trap. And then what?

"What!? Chocolate for Valentines Day! Foul Temptress, I shall not have my soul imperiled by your insidious ways! Smite! Smiiiiiiite!"

I don't think you want kids to grow up like that, right? :P

That said, I don't see many, if any, DM's using insidious techniques to corrupt children as part of their bad guy's plans. It tends to be a bit more blatant in dnd land, with necromancers raiding cemeteries and cults kidnapping people for sacrifice instead of slowly turning an entire town neutral evil so they can sway them with dark enchantments or devilish pacts.

[Nifft]

I'm glad you cleared that up. Also I did state "If you have means to reasonably hold it." The balor in question fails that but yes. I did misunderstand your position. I think we can all agree "sometimes" a murder can be good. However, I prefer in those cases that it is more of an "Execution." rather than an actual murder.

Execution implies legal process. Like murder, it's a legal term, not a moral term. Executing an innocent person is quite possible and can be an Evil act (maybe even an intentionally Evil act, especially likely if the local government is Evil).

You're conditioned to accept state-approved violence ("execution") and reject state-disapproved violence ("murder"), but those terms are not actually moral -- they're legal at best, and political at worst. They're not moral terms.

You might not notice that you're confusing them with moral terms if you focus on places where the state is both powerful and Good, but my players don't always operate in areas which are part of any particular state -- and sometimes they operate in places where the state is actively Evil.

[hamishspence]

That book is ... not used at my table. I find it deeply flawed.

IMHO that particular rule is dumb, and like most absolute rules, it can easily be twisted to trick a Paladin into falling.

E.g.: "The Balor surrenders. It looks at the brick jailhouse and smirks."

BoVD's "Killing fiends is always a Good act" then comes into play.

(leaving aside the incredibly rare redeemed fiend).

BoED also points out that "Execution for serious crimes is widely practiced, and does not qualify as Evil".

But not every Evil-aligned being has committed "serious crimes". And, for a killing to deserve the term "execution" rather than murder, requires a bit more effort.



That's only technically true, and that's because most people in a D&D setting aren't tried at all.

Trials are a modern luxury.

That's not the impression I got from DMG2. Some kind of trial is usual, even if it might be "trial by ordeal" rather than "trial by jury" or "trial by judge". D&D is not supposed to be exactly like a medieval world anyway.

[gooddragon1]

1>No, they would by nature do bad things in the future.
2>No, see answer #1.
3>No, see answer #1.
4>If they were lawful aligned.

The only thing that might change is their lawful alignment to neutral from lawful. Because they are denying the person due process and a chance at redemption. Culling evil is never a bad thing.

[hamishspence]

The only thing that might change is their lawful alignment to neutral from lawful. Because they are denying the person due process and a chance at redemption. Culling evil is never a bad thing.

Actually it can be:

http://archive.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.

[ShaneMRoth]

I'd also like opinions on this scenario. In our last session the neutral good cleric of pelor killed the familiar of an evil npc after the familiar had surrendered(It was at 0 health with no chance of escaping). His basis for killing the familiar was to cause the npc to loose experience. Would this be an evil act? (It's a bit late for me to suddenly punish the player for this but I'd like to know for future reference.)
Would the fact that the familiar had been fighting the players moments ago with the intent to kill change your answer?

Please do not punish the player for this after the fact. That is so very wrong.

Assuming I have all of the relevant facts, I would deem this to be an act that was out of character for a Good PC. Maybe it's Neutral, maybe it's Evil. But it isn't in keeping with the Good alignment.

The party accepted the surrender terms of the NPC, so the lethal combat that happens earlier shouldn't enter into it.

The stated reason for the kill was not for the purpose of safety, but was done for expedient and tactical reasons. By costing the NPC experience points, that placed the NPC at a tactical disadvantage.

If it was necessary to kill the familiar to prevent it from murdering the Party in their sleep until they could get the NPC to civilization and justice, then the cleric's hand would be forced.

This was a kill made on the grounds of expediency and what would be the optimal game mechanical response.

That implies prioritizing self-interest over principle as well as situational ethics and morals. That seems like an act that is so aggressively Neutral that it is more likely than not to be "out of character" for a PC of Good alignment.

As I see it, Good characters are expected to be merciful, even when it's not the most optimal strategic decision on the table.

They are supposed to err on the side of not killing, provided that they can do so without compromising their own immediate safety or the immediate safety of others.

You didn't describe this familiar as an existential threat, so I'm assuming that letting the familiar live wasn't going to place the party and countless villagers in mortal danger.

Good players are expected to look for a reason not to kill off someone, particularly someone who is placing themselves at that Good character's mercy.

[Telok]

Is killing a non-hostile (for now) drider considered evil?
Is lying to a drider in order to kill it considered evil if it was not going to lie in order to kill you?
Do you think a good cleric would need to atone for this drider's death?
Do you think this would cause an alignment shift?
Is leaving the drider alive a good thing to do considering that they are listed as 'always evil'?
Do you think a good cleric would need to atone for letting the drider go after it sacrificed an orphanage full of babies to Loth?

A bartender who short-changes his customers, kicks dogs, and cheats on his wife can ping Detect Evil. A banker who sets people up with loans they can't repay and then forcloses on them, taking their homes, can ping Detect Evil. The cultist who giggles as he flays people alive and eats their organs while they watch pings Detect Evil.

Which ones get the smiting face stab and not the 'turn to the good side' speech? Where do you draw the line? What if the cultist only flays and eats driders?

[Nifft]

BoVD's "Killing fiends is always a Good act" then comes into play. Absolute statements are always wrong.


But not every Evil-aligned being has committed "serious crimes". And, for a killing to deserve the term "execution" rather than murder, requires a bit more effort. In my game, mortals don't detect as Evil unless they've used a lot of [Evil] magic, or pledged themselves to an [Evil] patron.

Just being a used horse salesman won't cause you to ping on the Paladin's Smite-O-Vision.


That's not the impression I got from DMG2. Some kind of trial is usual, even if it might be "trial by ordeal" rather than "trial by jury" or "trial by judge". D&D is not supposed to be exactly like a medieval world anyway. Those are things that happen to the (relatively) rich and powerful -- i.e. to the PCs.

Chuck McChicken the Commoner might not get that luxury.

[Sagetim]

1>No, they would by nature do bad things in the future.
2>No, see answer #1.
3>No, see answer #1.
4>If they were lawful aligned.

The only thing that might change is their lawful alignment to neutral from lawful. Because they are denying the person due process and a chance at redemption. Culling evil is never a bad thing.

I have to counter with Dragonlance: The people started legally mandating the culling of evil. The gods dropped a mountain on them and removed their pieces from the playing field. That said, the setting also has a set up of gods that feel they have to keep the world in balance between good and evil, color code wizards based on alignment (white for good, red for neutral, black for evil) and make their clerics wear very noticable bling as their focus of holy powers. Did I mention that black robe wizards aren't actively hunted down for being evil in the setting? And it's not about giving them a chance at redemption. It's because their gods actively tell them that there's supposed to be a balance between good and evil in the world.

But to get away from the Dragonlance example and to go to the extreme: if you went around and killed all the evil in the world you would do two things: create a vacuum for greater evil to fill. And you would eventually create a climate of dread. If you killed all the evil people, and then kept culling anyone who fell to evil, people would notice. And they would be afraid of falling to evil. They would do good things not because they wanted to help others, but for their own personal gain (or in this case, the hope that they wouldn't be culled). Doing good because you fear for your life sounds like a pretty ****ty place to live to me. And depending on how the DM interprets alignment, it might cause people to fall to neutral evil, or thereabouts, as they try to compete to one another's detriment for the purpose of doing actions that make them look good. And then they get culled by the paladins and everyone gets even more scared. Yes, this is supposed to be a ridiculous example.

Edit:
Well, if regular jerks don't ping evil in your campaigns, then detect evil is a viable means for being used as smiteovision in your campaigns. I don't encounter that as the norm, though.


Is killing a non-hostile (for now) drider considered evil?
Is lying to a drider in order to kill it considered evil if it was not going to lie in order to kill you?
Do you think a good cleric would need to atone for this drider's death?
Do you think this would cause an alignment shift?
Is leaving the drider alive a good thing to do considering that they are listed as 'always evil'?
Do you think a good cleric would need to atone for letting the drider go after it sacrificed an orphanage full of babies to Loth?

A bartender who short-changes his customers, kicks dogs, and cheats on his wife can ping Detect Evil. A banker who sets people up with loans they can't repay and then forcloses on them, taking their homes, can ping Detect Evil. The cultist who giggles as he flays people alive and eats their organs while they watch pings Detect Evil.

Which ones get the smiting face stab and not the 'turn to the good side' speech? Where do you draw the line? What if the cultist only flays and eats driders?

No, Driders are crazy spider *******s that are always evil and probably inherently evil. If you could find a non-evil drider, I think the gods of good would be obligated to give you a miracle or something.
No, you can lie to inherently evil creatures to kill them. This might not mesh well with some paladins, but even lawful good players can lie without an alignment shift.
No, the cleric doesn't have to atone for killing a being that embodies the will of an evil god. In fact, he should get bonus points for killing it from his good god. Seriously, it would be getting paid twice day for that cleric.
No alignment shift. If you did your due diligence and it pinged evil, you can kill that drider for being the embodiment of an evil god's will walking the earth. It really doesn't matter if it's rebelling against lolth or hates her, I'm pretty sure most or all driders hate her. But they are still a walking signboard for lolth 'convert or be converted to this' kind of advertising.
No, leaving a drider alive is a dumb idea unless you have taken it upon yourself to start mind raping it into a good creature. And that's what you're going to need to convert it. A lot of mind rape. Buckets of it, even.
Yes, because that cleric is dumb and should feel bad for letting an obviously evil monster get away just because it gave him 8 puppy dog eyes.

[gooddragon1]

Actually it can be:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a

I would personally peg said commoners as neutral. For my interpretation, evil is an intent and eventual actions as soon as convenient to cause harm. D&D may not line up with that, but that's just what I look at it as being. Enjoying watching someone burn and in pain is neutral. Being the one who wants to light them on fire to cause them pain and doing so at the first opportunity is evil. Just my opinion on it. But then, what is love? Baby don't hurt me.

[Crake]

Evil people kill for convenience

You know what killing an evil cleric in their sleep to prevent them from burning down an orphanage in the future is? Convenient. The right thing to do would be to properly apprehend them, and make them atone for their crimes, hopefully in the process, making them see that what they do is wrong, but instead, I could kill him in his sleep! That's convenient, solves the problem right away, doesn't it? (though as people have said, it doesn't because that damned soul is now bolstering the lower planes)

[Mystral]

Is killing a non-hostile evil character considered evil?

No. Killing evil people is not evil. It is either neutral or good. Assumingly, the guy has earned his evil alignment, and killing him ensures that he doesn't continue perpetrating evil deeds.

Of course, it is even better to try and bring the evil guy to justice, or to reform him and show him the error of his ways. But it is better to kill him than to let him go and continue in his ways.


Is betraying an evil person considered evil if they were not going to betray you?

Chaotic yes. Evil no. Betrayal in itself is not evil.


Do you think a good cleric would need to atone for this betrayal?

Depends on the god in question. A very lawfull god that hates betrayal might cut his spell access, but other than that, he might get either a warning, a commendation or nothing at all.


Do you think this would cause an alignment shift?

A single act should never constitute an alignment shift.

[Elbeyon]

Is killing a non-hostile evil character considered evil?
Is betraying an evil person considered evil if they were not going to betray you?Alignment is not defined enough to answer anything but the most basic black and white scenarios. That means that good and evil depend entirely on a person's interpretation of them. The thing is that good and evil are, in the real world, just as poorly defined as in the book (even more so). They are not a universal fact (definition, constant). They are opinions. So, make crap up. That's what everyone else does. Do what works for your particular group.

[hamishspence]

No. Killing evil people is not evil. It is either neutral or good. Assumingly, the guy has earned his evil alignment, and killing him ensures that he doesn't continue perpetrating evil deeds.
Depends on the deeds in question. There's such a thing as minor evil deeds - for which a character does not deserve execution. Not just in Eberron, but in mainstream D&D as well.



A single act should never constitute an alignment shift.

DMG says that as a general rule, it shouldn't - but also, that there are exceptions to the alignment general rules.

[Segev]

First off, as noted, "murder" is a loaded term, here. Good-aligned people generally will always say it is an evil act; they have other words for killing that is non-evil. Lawful people will always say it is wrong; to them, a "murder" is a killing that is illegal (by their code).

Secondly, betrayal is morally neutral, but ethically chaotic. Obviously, the circumstances of the betrayal - its nature and its consequences and its motives - can implicate morality, but the underling who becomes a defector from decadence by performing an act of betrayal of his trusted position in the Evil Empire to save the heroes is performing a betrayal...that is probably Good. So it can go either way.

That said, there's a reason good-aligned people tend, after working with an evil person, not to turn on them just because they're evil. That evil person has, presumably, just proven he's got potential for good. Telling him to go forth and do no more evil is valid. It's the LN or LG thing to do, certainly, because there's the loyalty aspect: you agreed to work together, and using that against each other would be a betrayal - a chaotic act. Ethically neutral or even chaotic people CAN do the same thing; there is a pragmatism to keeping one's word when it leaves you no worse off than you were before the agreement was made. It helps encourage people to help you in the future, knowing they can trust that you won't take advantage of them.

However, if he is sufficiently vile that death is, in fact, warranted for his moral crimes, a chaotic person could betray and kill them. Even a neutral one could, though he'd have to think harder about it and struggle with it more, because while neutral people can break "laws," they tend to recognize that it's not something to do casually (unlike chaotic people who view them as things to ignore completely - neither seeking to break nor follow them).

[Taelas]

The standard example of this is a paladin who uses Detect Evil in the tavern, and then kills the bartender because he shows up under the ability. This is an evil act, and should cause the paladin to fall, because "evil" is not synonymous with "needs killing". Unfortunately, many players are under the mistaken impression that this is not only allowed for a paladin, but actually required, which ends up leading to a lot of the hatred towards paladins.

This really depends on how you define an Evil character, though.

Hear me out.

In order to be Evil--to register as such on the alignment scale--you have to be, y'know, evil. Assuming a bartender registers as "strongly evil", a paladin can be pretty darn sure that they must have done something to have earned that.

This doesn't mean that they should just start smiting people as soon as they ping, but frankly, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't, either. Evil is evil.

Keep in mind that a paladin is also required to respect legitimate authority. They tend to want things like proof--which, to the smite-happy paladin, they already have--and tend to frown on committing brutal murder in public taverns.

But bad paladins aside, it's more than possible to legitimately play a smite-on-ping paladin without falling for it.

Of course, this depends, as I mentioned, on the Evil characters actually having done evil stuff. If you have evil characters who are merely jerks, then it goes straight out the window.

[Jormengand]

I'd also like opinions on this scenario. In our last session the neutral good cleric of pelor killed the familiar of an evil npc after the familiar had surrendered(It was at 0 health with no chance of escaping). His basis for killing the familiar was to cause the npc to loose experience. Would this be an evil act? (It's a bit late for me to suddenly punish the player for this but I'd like to know for future reference.)
Would the fact that the familiar had been fighting the players moments ago with the intent to kill change your answer?

Bad for good ends is textbook neutral.

[Segev]

To a Lawful person, merely knowing that somebody has done something vile is not sufficient to punish them. Even if it had to be truly, unrepentantly awful to ping the way they do, the right and just punishments for different crimes are different things. A man who delights in dog-fights and tormenting the animals, gleefully threatens weaker people with throwing them to his dogs, but would never actually do so (he loves the feeling of power and their terror, but he wouldn't actually murder anybody), will definitely ping as evil...but he does not deserve to be killed for his immorality. Terrified, scared straight, whipped perhaps or thrown in jail, yes. (Remember, medieval setting, so harshness of punishment is not unheard-of.) Executed or permanently maimed, no.

Heck, even a CG person would balk at killing such a person. Creatively punish and torment, absolutely, but not kill.

Neutral people might be able to do so without too many qualms, especially if they have a fondness for dogs. I could see any non-NG druid killing the man with extreme prejudice (abuse of animals is a crime against Nature). It would be an evil act, but as with many evil acts, it wouldn't be enough to make you fall an alignment tag, not by itself. Still, it would be enough of an Evil act to make a Paladin fall, and if he did it without even finding out why this guy pings evil, it would probably also be Chaotic enough that, even were he to stop short of killing (and thus singularly evil), he would at risk of slipping to NG if he did it repeatedly.

[Trasilor]

The more and more I read this (and other morality threads), the more I think that 99% of the population would ping as Neutral. People do good and bad things. Most are just trying to get by in life trying to help their 'family' as best they can. Generally, they follow the law, but most don't go out of their way to harm others.

[illyahr]

I have to counter with Dragonlance: The people started legally mandating the culling of evil. The gods dropped a mountain on them and removed their pieces from the playing field. That said, the setting also has a set up of gods that feel they have to keep the world in balance between good and evil, color code wizards based on alignment (white for good, red for neutral, black for evil) and make their clerics wear very noticable bling as their focus of holy powers. Did I mention that black robe wizards aren't actively hunted down for being evil in the setting? And it's not about giving them a chance at redemption. It's because their gods actively tell them that there's supposed to be a balance between good and evil in the world.

Just a clarification here. The DL gods didn't drop a mountain because they made hunting Evil the law. Evil hunts Good. Good hunts Evil. That's how it works. The problem came about because Good was winning. Bastions of Evil were being wiped out. The people became so Good that even Neutral was considered Evil. Since the gods of Good were not helping them wipe out or convert Neutral to Good, the people eventually viewed themselves as more Good than the gods. This culminated with the Kingpriest of Istar demanding that the gods give him the power to wipe out Evil forever. The gods of Good, outraged at the presumption of mortals and concerned for the balance of the world, allied with the gods of Neutrality and the gods of Evil to cause The Cataclysm, dropping a meteor right on the Kingpriest's head and resetting the balance.

[noob]

Why all those questions killing someone is clearly one of the most evil acts together with destroying souls and trying to send to hell people in fact one murder no matter the justifications should make you evil aligned instantly.

[Segev]

The more and more I read this (and other morality threads), the more I think that 99% of the population would ping as Neutral. People do good and bad things. Most are just trying to get by in life trying to help their 'family' as best they can. Generally, they follow the law, but most don't go out of their way to harm others.

Because it takes a strong alignment to ping without also being high level and/or a cleric/paladin type thing, most won't ping at all even if they're technically Good, Lawful, Evil, or Chaotic. And probably at least 75% of the population is morally and ethically neutral. The thing to remember is that, in societies, "good" and "lawful" behavior will be the norm because they're largely practical. But even moreso, the societal standards will shape individuals' behavior. If one is neutral, one will "go along to get along" and "do unto others as one expects to be done unto him."

In a good and lawful society, most people will be generally law-abiding (but will shirk the small things where convenient) and generally kind to others (because others are generally kind to them, and small cruelties can get one in trouble while the social structure provides protection and built-in retaliation for cruelties to oneself).

In an evil and lawful society, people will tend to follow the laws as long as they could get caught, and will tend to eagerly point out infractions of others (raising the risk of any given person getting caught) in order to exploit the system for legally-sanctioned cruelty. They will cooperate, but be watching their own backs for betrayal in ways that are legal. They will seek their own advantage at others' expense because not doing so risks having others take advantage of you without you gaining anything.

In a chaotic and good society, traditions will be more important than "laws," and even traditions will just be tried-and-true expectations. Mostly, the focus is on respecting others. Again, people will tend to be kind because kindness is typically reciprocated and cruelty is righteously punished (whether you take it in your own hands with the acceptance of society, or you plead for help and other heroes do so for you). However, breaking the "traditions" is totally acceptable (if a bit eccentric) as long as you're not hurting anybody. Still, most of those people will follow traditions because they're broad things; there's not a lot of "little" laws to ignore for convenience, but being more natively neutral than chaotic, most people will form their own unspoken rules and will to some extent resent it when others violate them. Society's cultural expectations say it's "okay" for them to be eccentric, though, so the neutral people's own traditions mean they'll accept it as long as it's not eggregiously violating anybody else's rights.

Calling a CE "society" a "society" is...a stretch. But there can be something like one, as humans are social creatures and even in total anarchy (which always leads to CE). There are no rules other than "don't get in the way of someone stronger." Nearly everybody - even the majority-neutral crowd - will be suspicious, mean-spirited, and take their joys and kicks where they can get them, because if they don't, they'll be taken by somebody else. And, since trying to work together only helps in tribe-sized bites, you'll find gangs rather than an overarching cooperative society (barring, of course, a sufficiently powerful gang boss to force the other gangs by his own might to obey his rules. This is what Drow society looks like, with Lolth at the top).

In short, most people are neutral...but they will drift towards the alignment of their society, out of peer pressure and necessity.

[hamishspence]

Because it takes a strong alignment to ping without also being high level and/or a cleric/paladin type thing, most won't ping at all even if they're technically Good, Lawful, Evil, or Chaotic.

In older editions, yes. In 3.0-3.5, no.

[Segev]

In older editions, yes. In 3.0-3.5, no.

Really? I was pretty sure that it only detected auras, and that you don't have an aura without being over a certain HD or having certain tags or class features. And that there was a hedge bit about being SUFFICIENTLY a given alignment giving you an aura, but that it had to be impressive adherence to the alignment in question.

[illyahr]

Really? I was pretty sure that it only detected auras, and that you don't have an aura without being over a certain HD or having certain tags or class features. And that there was a hedge bit about being SUFFICIENTLY a given alignment giving you an aura, but that it had to be impressive adherence to the alignment in question.

That's how it used to work, but they changed it. Particularly powerful souls and auras will glow but regular souls, who happen to be evil, will still show up.

Think of the difference between a light source and a dull reflection. Normal evil will show up to a detect evil spell, but won't have anywhere near the intensity as a 1st-level evil cleric.

[hamishspence]

3.5:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm

A faint aura - but still an aura.

Pathfinder, however, has the HD restriction:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/detect-evil



Think of the difference between a light source and a dull reflection. Normal evil will show up to a detect evil spell, but won't have anywhere near the intensity as a 1st-level evil cleric.
Actually, it's "cleric of evil-aligned deity" - Neutral clerics still ping as evil if their deity is evil.

[Segev]

Then the fact that just being on the "evil" side of the neutral/evil divide makes you ping, combined with the fact that neutral clerics of evil deities ping, makes paladins even less justified in "smite first, ask questions later." Detect evil is a great tool for warning you of who to watch out for, but it's not an unfailing litmus test.

[illyahr]

Then the fact that just being on the "evil" side of the neutral/evil divide makes you ping, combined with the fact that neutral clerics of evil deities ping, makes paladins even less justified in "smite first, ask questions later." Detect evil is a great tool for warning you of who to watch out for, but it's not an unfailing litmus test.

Exactly the point. Just because someone shows up with a detect evil, doesn't necessarily mean that they have done anything to warrant being smote. First round of detecting shows only "yes there is evil/no there is no evil." Second round shows "how many evils," and third round shows "power of the evils."

[Nifft]

You know what killing an evil cleric in their sleep to prevent them from burning down an orphanage in the future is? Convenient. Disingenuous misinterpretation isn't actually an argument.

The evil Cleric was on the list for termination before his death became convenient. His death is not FOR convenience, it's because he's Evil, and he needs killin'.

Killing for convenience may be evil -- but a convenient kill not evil necessarily evil, it's just a happy coincidence.

Another example: killing for profit may be evil -- but profiting from a kill is not the same thing as killing FOR profit, and D&D characters profit an awful lot from most kills.

[ShaneMRoth]

...
Walking into the lair of an Evil dragon who is asleep and Smiting its face with your Holy Avenger is not an Evil act.

Similarly, walking into the home of an Evil cleric who is asleep and Smiting his or her face with your Holy Avenger is not an Evil act... though it might be illegal, and get you in trouble. "Good" and "Legal" are not the same thing.


Killing the sleeping dragon? That's fine. [Bleep] him in the [Bleep] with a [Bleep] of Wondrous Power.

If you can managed to get close enough to a sleeping dragon in my campaign, you will have bypassed enough safeguards and hazards for this to qualify as a full CR even if he never wakes up. And since you will have performed a coup-de-grace... that dragon will never wake up.

In my campaign, the sleeping cleric scenario would play differently.

If you decided to perform a home invasion and murder a human being in a settlement I will say something to the effect of, "Your character knows that if he goes through with this, he will fall from grace. Also, you aren't getting any experience point award for it. Do you still want to do this?"

I have a house rule that I don't routinely give out experience point awards for use of lethal force in settlements. It's my Murder Hobo House Rule. And it works like gangbusters. So, you as a player would know that your paladin would fall from grace and will get no XP for it.

You could still take the action, but I strongly suspect you would reconsider.

Paladins are supposed to respect legitimate authority, and that includes respecting the law of the land. You play your paladin like Marv in Sin City in my campaign... he is going to be Atoning more frequently than he changes his socks.

[marphod]

Keeping the familiar of an evil mage near your group is a major liability, not least because the mage has an empathic connection to the familiar, and might be able to use the familiar as a scry target.

This is what extra-dimensional spaces and lead-lined boxes/Faraday Cages are for.

Evil things that don't need to breath - into the extra dimensional space. (make sure it opens to its own demiplane, rather than some part of the Astral or Ethereal). Evil things that need to breath (and your DM won't let you just hand them a bottle of air), into the lead lined box.


So it's a high-risk activity. That doesn't mean you should kill it, of course, it just means that you'd need to justify endangering the lives of everyone nearby vs. the life of this evil mage's pet.

What danger? If they BBEG has epic level abilities to scry through lead, you're already done for. If they don't, no danger.

Also, Familiar's are _not_ pets. Animal Companions have animal level intelligence and are pets. Familiars have a higher int score than a good number of party members, and show full sentience and independence. Improved Familiars (non-construct) even moreso. A badly treated familiar can abandon their caster, and may (*ahem* should) have independent goals from the caster. casters who go through major alignment shifts are likely to be at odds with their familiars.


IMHO, the question to ask is: If the familiar's master were here, would you try to kill the master? The familiar ought to be treated as a part of the master, not as a separate entity, since AFAICT a familiar always acts upon its master's will.

Admittedly, it is either 2nd edition or 3rd party, but you've obviously never played in a Ravenloft game.

Regardless, the general case is that Familiars should act on their best judgement and usually in accordance with what they think their caster wishes. This is far from acting as part of the caster's will.

Really, I think the question comes down to 'Can I trust the familiar's surrender?' If everything else is equal, if the surrender is honest and will either give you their parole (take no hostile actions, do not impede, do not try to escape) or at least take no action against you (other than a prisoner's obligation to try to escape), refusing the surrender and killing the Familiar is an evil act.
If you do not believe the intention of the familiar, you are not obligated to accept its surrender.

Refusing an Unconditional Surrender from an opponent you can effectively disable is Not A Good Act. Killing someone who makes such a surrender is usually an Evil act.

Likewise, Refusing an Unconditional Surrender from an honorable opponent is Not A Good Act. Killing someone who makes such a surrender is probably an Evil act.

However, someone who makes an unconditional surrender means that there are no conditions. If, in your Goodness, believe the best possible course of action is to execute your new prisoner, it may be. To borrow a concept from the Dresden Files
(Background: The Denarians are a breed of demons, each attached to one of the 30 pieces of silver that Judas received for betraying the carpenter. A Mortal in possession of one of the coins can be influenced and corrupted by the demon contained within. The demon can also use their powers through the mortal vessel. The Knights of the Swords are mortals who, among other acts of Good, take up the quest to suppress and control the Denarians.)

The Knights will not kill an un-possessed mortal (except in defense. And sometimes the defense is pro-active, but that's the general idea). If the mortal overcomes the demon long enough to rid themselves of the associated coin, they are free and clear from the knights. This is Dum for a number of reasons, but it includes the case where the mortal has every intention of betraying those they surrender to, and taking every possible action to recover the coin/demon as soon as possible. Killing the mortal the first time they surrender would be grounds for one of the Knights to fall. Or the second. Or probably the tenth. However, once there is no longer any reason to believe the surrender is genuine. Sometime around fake surrender 25-or-so, saying 'F this, we're not falling for it again. Time to die before you can get the coin back and go on yet another murder spree.' is a perfectly reasonable, good act.

Refusing a conditional surrender is not always Not A Good Act. And Executing a Prisoner is not always an Evil act.

[Nifft]

In my campaign, the sleeping cleric scenario would play differently.
That's justifiable. It's not how things work in my campaign -- because, for example, assassinating an evil dictator will NOT cause you to fall from grace -- but it's a fine way to rule if it works for your game, as long as you consider edge cases like:
- The Evil Cleric has taken over the town! He is the local authority. In my game, that town would no longer have a legitimate local authority, and surprise face-stabbing would be 100% okay until legitimate authority were restored.


This is what extra-dimensional spaces and lead-lined boxes/Faraday Cages are for.

Evil things that don't need to breath - into the extra dimensional space. Familiars are just regular magical beasts. They do need to breathe.

You're suggesting murder via negligent ignorance.

Dumb is not Good.

[Segev]

Yeah, "I surrender, now you have to full heal me and let me go with my worthless promise that I won't go and kill your hometown for your temerity in forcing me to this indignity," is not actually a thing that anybody but a Lawful Stupid person would feel bound to honor.

This happened in a game I was in. My PC was the only one who thought it was utterly stupid; the rest of the party were ready to condemn him as evil and in need of killin' even though they wouldn't kill the BBEG they'd forced into surrender.

My PC, a wizard, collected a sample of her epic-level blood from the wall where it'd splattered during the fight. When we got back home and found she'd led her army to burn our hometown to the ground, he used that blood to make a simulacrum. He gave the simulacrum a packet of papers and instruction to take it to the real version of herself. He told the simulacrum how pissed off he was at the stupidity of the party (true) and that he thought the BBEG would never have made such a mistake (true) and that the packet contains details of a deal he's proposing to switch sides and join her (true but misleading).

Also within the packet was the trigger word for a trap the soul spell he'd prepared specifically for the BBEG.

The plan worked...but later, the party found out what he'd done, and the leader beheaded him before even letting him defend himself (the DM didn't let me contingency teleport away, and has since apologized for that). They then found the diamond she was trapped in and freed her. Because holding her prisoner was way more evil than anything she'd ever done, apparently.

[Sagetim]

Just a clarification here. The DL gods didn't drop a mountain because they made hunting Evil the law. Evil hunts Good. Good hunts Evil. That's how it works. The problem came about because Good was winning. Bastions of Evil were being wiped out. The people became so Good that even Neutral was considered Evil. Since the gods of Good were not helping them wipe out or convert Neutral to Good, the people eventually viewed themselves as more Good than the gods. This culminated with the Kingpriest of Istar demanding that the gods give him the power to wipe out Evil forever. The gods of Good, outraged at the presumption of mortals and concerned for the balance of the world, allied with the gods of Neutrality and the gods of Evil to cause The Cataclysm, dropping a meteor right on the Kingpriest's head and resetting the balance.

Yes, but it was more fun to write it the way I wrote it at like, 4 am.

In response to Segev's story: That sounds like Lawful Stupid at it's finest. Just, no one should feel that obligated to do something like that. MAYBE if they have exalted feats that include vow of nonviolence, but even then, if you did it without their knowledge, without their ability to do anything about it, etc, then they aren't obligated to try and reverse it after the fact.

[hamishspence]

Detect evil is a great tool for warning you of who to watch out for, but it's not an unfailing litmus test.

Another way of looking at it - if you're fighting a mixed group of Evil and "fairly nasty Neutral" people - Detect Evil ensures your Smites are not wasted (Or at least, significantly reduces that chance).

[Lurkmoar]

Yeah, "I surrender, now you have to full heal me and let me go with my worthless promise that I won't go and kill your hometown for your temerity in forcing me to this indignity," is not actually a thing that anybody but a Lawful Stupid person would feel bound to honor.
-snip-

*facepalm*

Did the campaign grind to a halt at that point, or did they live to regret their actions? If they just straight up murdered you without debating, they really can't claim ANY form of moral high ground. Sure, Trap the Soul is a pretty nasty spell, but I get the feeling you used that because you didn't believe death would necessarily stop the BBEG?

Would have been funny if the BBEG won and everyone met at the afterlife so your wizard could just glare at them and then say:

"I told you so. But no! Don't listen to the smart guy and hack off his head! Great lob gang, truly a victory for justice."

[Rhyltran]

*facepalm*

Did the campaign grind to a halt at that point, or did they live to regret their actions? If they just straight up murdered you without debating, they really can't claim ANY form of moral high ground. Sure, Trap the Soul is a pretty nasty spell, but I get the feeling you used that because you didn't believe death would necessarily stop the BBEG?

Would have been funny if the BBEG won and everyone met at the afterlife so your wizard could just glare at them and then say:

"I told you so. But no! Don't listen to the smart guy and hack off his head! Great lob gang, truly a victory for justice."

While not D&D I have said similar things nearly word for word when playing the game Town of Salem. That being said, that story was beyond shocking. I've never had a party do something that insane. I mean, other than a Drow campaign where the party druid decided that he wanted to side with a deep dragon and when the rest of the party wasn't on board decided since he was the most powerful individual member of the party he was going to kill all of us. Except that's a Drow campaign so it's not really that shocking. It did end with his death and our cleric's death.

[Yukitsu]

Is killing a non-hostile evil character considered evil?

This requires the question of "what is the minimum of evil." When you're talking about whether or not someone is evil, you need to tell me what is required to get that alignment. If it could mean "slightly greedy barkeeper" which some members of the "requires more evidence" camp sit in, then you can't. If you're like me and to be evil you need to significantly bad before they become evil then no, it would not be evil to kill that individual.


Is betraying an evil person considered evil if they were not going to betray you?

It's less whether or not they would betray you, but more a matter of whether or not they trust you. Betraying someone that you tell outright that you don't trust and who you know doesn't trust you isn't much of an evil. However, if they entrust their life to you and rely on you, that kind of betrayal could be evil.


Do you think a good cleric would need to atone for this betrayal?

Not really, no.


Do you think this would cause an alignment shift?

Maybe if he's evil because he stole 5 cents from his mother and pings evil for doing that.


Lastly as food for thought, what if the evil npc was instead a neutral character who performed evil deeds?


Depends on what you consider as evil deeds. If his evil deeds are again, stealing pennies from the local take a penny leave a penny box, then yes, that would be evil. If he's doing things that really are evil, then he's not neutral, he's evil and killing him would be fine.

Remember that D&D is a game. It's not always fun to talk everything down or try to turn alignment into a ridiculous set of hoops to leap through. Combat in game can be fun. Jumping into it should be an option and it shouldn't make it so you can't play someone who is ultimately a good guy. All you need for that is evil which is actually evil. Not evil which maybe is a bit grouchy.

[hamishspence]

If the characters's constantly doing "tiny evil deeds" and never doing "good deeds" though - they can seem pretty Evil without ever having committed a single "moral offence" that would get more than a minor sentence in a Good court.

[Scheming Wizard]

If your character is a Cleric or Paladin then it actually depends on their Deity. Some Gods are really hardcore about destroying evil and stabbing an evil cleric in the back earns you a thumbs up from on high. Other deities are about obeying oaths or diplomacy.

[Yukitsu]

If the characters's constantly doing "tiny evil deeds" and never doing "good deeds" though - they can seem pretty Evil without ever having committed a single "moral offence" that would get more than a minor sentence in a Good court.

What's a "tiny evil deed" to you though? Is it stealing pennies from a take a penny leave a penny? Is it not giving a Christmas bonus to your employees? Some people might even think of murder as a tiny evil deed that their court wouldn't grant a sentence to. If you're saying that it's actually evil to take those pennies, I think it's not worth trying to play good. The world is just too ready to condemn everything as evil where there's that huge swath in the middle of neutrality.

And courts don't punish evil, they enforce law. Even a good court is meant to enforce rules and law, not guarantee that good be done.

[Nifft]

If the characters's constantly doing "tiny evil deeds" and never doing "good deeds" though - they can seem pretty Evil without ever having committed a single "moral offence" that would get more than a minor sentence in a Good court.

In my game, I fixed that by saying that detectable Evil auras only come from performing [Evil] acts or touching [Evil] magic, not from merely being a horrible person to other people.

Even with my fix, it was not okay to just ping and smite, because a good Wizard might have an [Evil] aura from summoning devils for perfectly legitimate reasons; and the little girl who pings as [Evil] might be cursed, or she might have Tiefling blood, or she might be possessed by a fiend or ghost.

In my experience, it helped a lot -- making [Evil] a purely supernatural thing, which humans can't accumulate except through supernatural means.

[Taelas]

To a Lawful person, merely knowing that somebody has done something vile is not sufficient to punish them.
This is actually just wrong.

A Lawful character would absolutely want them to be punished, and assuming they were in a position to do so, they would carry it out.

The problem is, most Lawful characters aren't in such a position, and they require a burden of proof to show the person who is--and as Lawful characters, they would prefer to follow the established order. A Paladin, for example, needs to respect legitimate authority. But if you meet a Paladin while out in the wilderness--away from established law and order--and you register highly on his evil radar, you had damn well better expect him to try and smite your ass to the next world. In that situation, he has no one to answer to but himself, and as he already knows your guilt, he has no qualms about taking you to justice.


Even if it had to be truly, unrepentantly awful to ping the way they do, the right and just punishments for different crimes are different things. A man who delights in dog-fights and tormenting the animals, gleefully threatens weaker people with throwing them to his dogs, but would never actually do so (he loves the feeling of power and their terror, but he wouldn't actually murder anybody), will definitely ping as evil...but he does not deserve to be killed for his immorality. Terrified, scared straight, whipped perhaps or thrown in jail, yes. (Remember, medieval setting, so harshness of punishment is not unheard-of.) Executed or permanently maimed, no.

Heck, even a CG person would balk at killing such a person. Creatively punish and torment, absolutely, but not kill.

Neutral people might be able to do so without too many qualms, especially if they have a fondness for dogs. I could see any non-NG druid killing the man with extreme prejudice (abuse of animals is a crime against Nature). It would be an evil act, but as with many evil acts, it wouldn't be enough to make you fall an alignment tag, not by itself. Still, it would be enough of an Evil act to make a Paladin fall, and if he did it without even finding out why this guy pings evil, it would probably also be Chaotic enough that, even were he to stop short of killing (and thus singularly evil), he would at risk of slipping to NG if he did it repeatedly.
I disagree with your basic premise. I wouldn't make this man Evil unless he actually torments the animals to the point of death. "Merely" tormenting the dogs -- while that is absolutely an Evil act -- is not enough to push him from Neutral into Evil. So he wouldn't even register to a Paladin.

And if he tortures the animals to death, so he actually registers as Evil, then frankly, there are plenty of Good characters who would absolutely kill him in retribution. I would not consider it enough to fall even if a Paladin kills him.


Then the fact that just being on the "evil" side of the neutral/evil divide makes you ping, combined with the fact that neutral clerics of evil deities ping, makes paladins even less justified in "smite first, ask questions later." Detect evil is a great tool for warning you of who to watch out for, but it's not an unfailing litmus test.
What? A Neutral cleric of an Evil deity is a perfectly valid target. Not a particularly STRONG target, but completely viable. They are the servant of an Evil deity, after all.

Detect evil is absolutely a valid criteria for choosing who to kill. It is a very partial one, and it should be used with caution, but it is actually not wrong... in and of itself.

Unless the DM in question doesn't use alignment according to RAW, in which case it becomes a total crapshoot, but that should be explained in advance when a player chooses to play a paladin.


Exactly the point. Just because someone shows up with a detect evil, doesn't necessarily mean that they have done anything to warrant being smote.
Actually, generally that is exactly what it means.

You seem to think being an amoral jerk is enough to be Evil. It isn't. Here's the description for Evil:

'"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.'

It is possible to have become Evil without killing--such as through magical coercion--but such cases are unique anyway. Depending on the situation, it's possible the Paladin would fall, but that's what atonement is for. Also, in most cases, simply choosing to smite what registers as Evil would not cause a Fall. The exception would be if they weren't actually Evil, and the Paladin had the opportunity to see through the trickery, but chose to blindly go ahead with his "smite-first" routine. But that's only possible by manipulating events to trap the Paladin, which generally is a ****ty thing for a DM to do. It is still valid, and if the Paladin is an idiot, he could end up as a Fighter-without-bonus-feats. But frankly, it really shouldn't happen. If your Paladin players are annoying you by actively attacking your Evil creatures when you don't want them to--then give them ways to avoid detection.


If the characters's constantly doing "tiny evil deeds" and never doing "good deeds" though - they can seem pretty Evil without ever having committed a single "moral offence" that would get more than a minor sentence in a Good court.

This is about as far from true as it is possible to get. At least according to RAW.

What you are describing is an amoral Neutral character.

[Rhyltran]

What's a "tiny evil deed" to you though? Is it stealing pennies from a take a penny leave a penny? Is it not giving a Christmas bonus to your employees? Some people might even think of murder as a tiny evil deed that their court wouldn't grant a sentence to. If you're saying that it's actually evil to take those pennies, I think it's not worth trying to play good. The world is just too ready to condemn everything as evil where there's that huge swath in the middle of neutrality.

And courts don't punish evil, they enforce law. Even a good court is meant to enforce rules and law, not guarantee that good be done.

The way I look at it is that most evil people are cruel, selfish, violent, and manipulative individuals. Someone can be all of these things without committing murder, torture, and other similar extremes. What about the drunk who is physically abusive to his family? Is he scum? Certainly. Is it right for the paladin to ring his door bell and when he answers with a "The hell do you want?" stick a sword through his gut? I don't think so. I am not saying that evil people can be "someone who takes pennies out of the penny box." but can it be that violent abusive drunk? Sure. Can it be the man who kicks dogs, participates in animal fighting rings, lies, cheats, steals, and is willing to break someone's jaw if they push his buttons?

Of course. I would say that the man in question is also definitely evil. The thing these two men have in common here is that neither of them are murderers. Neither of them are likely to just wander over to their neighbor's house and murder them in their sleep just for fun. They both fit the evil description of being selfish, violent, cruel, and honestly dangerous. I would not describe the characters above as neutral aligned.

[Yukitsu]

The way I look at it is that most evil people are cruel, selfish, violent, and manipulative individuals. Someone can be all of these things without committing murder, torture, and other similar extremes. What about the drunk who is physically abusive to his family? Is he scum? Certainly. Is it right for the paladin to ring his door bell and when he answers with a "The hell do you want?" stick a sword through his gut? I don't think so. I am not saying that evil people can be "someone who takes pennies out of the penny box." but can it be that violent abusive drunk? Sure. Can it be the man who kicks dogs, participates in animal fighting rings, lies, cheats, steals, and is willing to break someone's jaw if they push his buttons?

Of course. I would say that the man in question is also definitely evil. The thing these two men have in common here is that neither of them are murderers. Neither of them are likely to just wander over to their neighbor's house and murder them in their sleep just for fun. They both fit the evil description of being selfish, violent, cruel, and honestly dangerous. I would not describe the characters above as neutral aligned.

Depending on the level of physical abuse, I wouldn't honestly condemn someone for killing that particular example. Nor would I be against killing him if those aforementioned buttons were easily pushed and he simply goes around breaking jaws on a regular basis. Even your example, that could really be a wide range of people, some who are very much worth calling evil and several which aren't. If the guy is basically torturing his wife and kids, breaking jaws of people just because he's drunk and thought they were looking at him funny and who kicks dogs then that's both evil and one that I wouldn't mind someone killing. If he gets drunk and yells insults at his wife and kids, has to be significantly insulted before getting into a fight, lies, cheats and steals I'd honestly still call him neutral.

[MyrPsychologist]

Depending on the level of physical abuse, I wouldn't honestly condemn someone for killing that particular example. Nor would I be against killing him if those aforementioned buttons were easily pushed and he simply goes around breaking jaws on a regular basis. Even your example, that could really be a wide range of people, some who are very much worth calling evil and several which aren't. If the guy is basically torturing his wife and kids, breaking jaws of people just because he's drunk and thought they were looking at him funny and who kicks dogs then that's both evil and one that I wouldn't mind someone killing. If he gets drunk and yells insults at his wife and kids, has to be significantly insulted before getting into a fight, lies, cheats and steals I'd honestly still call him neutral.

It's really unfair to make an argument from an extreme in this kind of circumstance.

Someone who is evil isn't necessarily some dastardly drunk that beats his family within an inch of their life. There are lesser degrees than that. And arbitrary announcing yourself judge, jury, and executioner for individuals that you don't know, don't understand, and whom don't mean you harm is certainly neither good nor lawful. At best it is vigilante justice and at worst you're just slaughtering innocent people.

It's easy to paint evil characters with a brush that they're all malicious and terrible forces that will stab you in the stomach for the fun of it. But that isn't a fair depiction of evil and only justifies murder hobos.

[Nifft]

Actually, generally that is exactly what it means.

You seem to think being an amoral jerk is enough to be Evil. It isn't.

Showing up on EvilVision™ could mean:
- Possession by a demon.
- Under the effect of an [Evil] spell (e.g. Protection from Good).
- She's a Wizard and she binds fiends for some reason. The reason might be quite Good (or it might be Evil, you can't tell from just her residual magic aura).

tl;dr - Actually, you're wrong.

[Red Fel]

Showing up on EvilVision™ could mean:
- Possession by a demon.
- Under the effect of an [Evil] spell (e.g. Protection from Good).
- She's a Wizard and she binds fiends for some reason. The reason might be quite Good (or it might be Evil, you can't tell from just her residual magic aura).

tl;dr - Actually, you're wrong.

It could also mean a Neutral Cleric of an Evil deity. That's right, the Detect Evil spell notes that Cleric auras are dependent upon their deities - meaning that, for example, an LN Cleric of an LE deity would register as smiteworthy.

One of the campaign setting books - I forget which one - described roughly one third of the population as being Evil. Not necessarily murderous, all-hating and life-devouring Evil; just day-to-day Evil, like slumlords who pocket the money that should maintain their properties, greedy bankers who foreclose on homes in winter, and jerkwad guardsmen who handle suspects just a bit harder than they need to, with just a bit too much glee. Ordinary mundane people whose biggest crimes are being just a bit crueler, a bit angrier, a bit colder-hearted than everyone else.

Imprisoning them would probably be appropriate. Chewing them out would certainly be merited. Killing them would be a disproportionately Evil act.

Because here's another thing, something that most Good characters comprehend - there is a vast spectrum of options between "ignore it" and "killin' time." You can stop Evil - whether it's mundane, day-to-day Evil or vast, cosmic Evil - in many ways, and not all of them involve the liberal application of forged steel to tender flesh. Particularly the former. And disproportionate retribution, even though the recipient may deserve some form of judgment, is not the Good way.

[Yukitsu]

It's really unfair to make an argument from an extreme in this kind of circumstance.

Someone who is evil isn't necessarily some dastardly drunk that beats his family within an inch of their life. There are lesser degrees than that. And arbitrary announcing yourself judge, jury, and executioner for individuals that you don't know, don't understand, and whom don't mean you harm is certainly neither good nor lawful. At best it is vigilante justice and at worst you're just slaughtering innocent people.

So what is he then? Is there some scale of hitting his family that you're willing to accept as getting off the hook? I don't personally, but if it's enough that he's actually got an evil alignment and the DM is essentially painting him no longer as someone who sometimes does some bad things, sometimes does a few good things and almost always does relatively "meh" things, then absolutely a paladin can go and smite him.


It's easy to paint evil characters with a brush that they're all malicious and terrible forces that will stab you in the stomach for the fun of it. But that isn't a fair depiction of evil and only justifies murder hobos.

As there was in the quote from the rules that Taelas presented, evil absolutely is someone that hurts people who kills people and does so without good reason. D&D is a game where you're supposed to go on adventures and fight evil (that was literally how it was originally written, it wasn't morally complex and as their current writing goes, they still aren't.) Paladins were given detect evil to make it easier to find evil, not look into a crowd and have 100% of them ping because they're from some town where there's some kind of moral ambiguity. They were given smite evil so they could then hit it. Sure, you can say it encourages murder hoboing, but if you absolutely want to have moral complexity, don't use an alignment system, ban paladins and ban detect alignment.

[MyrPsychologist]

As there was in the quote from the rules that Taelas presented, evil absolutely is someone that hurts people who kills people and does so without good reason. D&D is a game where you're supposed to go on adventures and fight evil (that was literally how it was originally written, it wasn't morally complex and as their current writing goes, they still aren't.) Paladins were given detect evil to make it easier to find evil, not look into a crowd and have 100% of them ping because they're from some town where there's some kind of moral ambiguity. They were given smite evil so they could then hit it. Sure, you can say it encourages murder hoboing, but if you absolutely want to have moral complexity, don't use an alignment system, ban paladins and ban detect alignment.

Swindlers are considered evil. Narcissists are considered evil. There is actual evil behavior and characteristics that doesn't simply fall into "beats kittens with puppies". Evil ISN'T just someone that goes around hurting and killing without good reason. Usually, there IS a reason. It's just a reason that is not focused on a virtue. Someone may be a slaver and view other races as inferior. Someone may be a swindler and believe that it is perfectly acceptable to abuse loopholes and trust because hey, it's going to happen to you eventually and you gotta look out for yourself. Someone may be a complete narcissist and pursue their own self glorification above all else, even the sacrifice of others. All of these are evil. All of these add moral complexity beyond someone who has a handlebar mustache and randomly ties women to train tracks.

Paladins have detect evil not to find things to slaughter. It is far from a "get out of jail free card" and much more of a tool that should be used and the results considered. Otherwise all you promote is the gamification of the ability. You just have paladins spamming it constantly for no damn reason and in this case having carte blance to slaughter people based on the results. It shouldn't be that simple. You should have to consider what about them is evil. Do they mean you harm? Is their evil malicious or selfish? I might not be Red Fel here but I feel safe to say that evil has depth and breath more than just "yo. kill this dude because he's bad".

[Taelas]

Showing up on EvilVision™ could mean:
- Possession by a demon.
- Under the effect of an [Evil] spell (e.g. Protection from Good).
- She's a Wizard and she binds fiends for some reason. The reason might be quite Good (or it might be Evil, you can't tell from just her residual magic aura).

tl;dr - Actually, you're wrong.

Possession, not the paladin's fault. Easy atonement at worst.
Under the effects of an [Evil] spell or from summons: sorry, try again; that would be a lingering aura. You can tell the difference: it is a dim aura, even weaker than the faint aura the weakest evildoers give off.


It could also mean a Neutral Cleric of an Evil deity. That's right, the Detect Evil spell notes that Cleric auras are dependent upon their deities - meaning that, for example, an LN Cleric of an LE deity would register as smiteworthy.

And the problem with that is...? Said Cleric is the servant of an Evil deity. Paladins oppose such. The sheer fact that they promote an Evil deity's agenda is reason enough not to be worried if they are caught up in the sweep. If you become aware of their actual alignment, then of course you should let them off the hook, but they chose to serve an Evil god.


One of the campaign setting books - I forget which one - described roughly one third of the population as being Evil. Not necessarily murderous, all-hating and life-devouring Evil; just day-to-day Evil, like slumlords who pocket the money that should maintain their properties, greedy bankers who foreclose on homes in winter, and jerkwad guardsmen who handle suspects just a bit harder than they need to, with just a bit too much glee. Ordinary mundane people whose biggest crimes are being just a bit crueler, a bit angrier, a bit colder-hearted than everyone else.

Imprisoning them would probably be appropriate. Chewing them out would certainly be merited. Killing them would be a disproportionately Evil act.
Campaign setting. Of all the irrelevant items you could have brought up, this has to be at the top of the list.

This is simply not what the core books say. You are probably the last person I should tell to read up on the Evil alignments, but perhaps you should.

There are indeed small time evildoers out there. They are Neutral--with a dark twist. When they cross the line, that is the moment they change alignment to Evil.

That is when they become fair game.


Because here's another thing, something that most Good characters comprehend - there is a vast spectrum of options between "ignore it" and "killin' time." You can stop Evil - whether it's mundane, day-to-day Evil or vast, cosmic Evil - in many ways, and not all of them involve the liberal application of forged steel to tender flesh. Particularly the former. And disproportionate retribution, even though the recipient may deserve some form of judgment, is not the Good way.

Of course there is. I never said anything different. I don't advocate this manner of playing a Paladin--I am merely saying that it is not inconsistent to do so. Most people act like such a character is self-contradictory, but it simply isn't.

It is incredibly close to the edge, though. It is a very imbalanced way to play a Paladin. Just killing Evil--even unredeemable, unrepentant Evil--is not a Good act in and of itself. It has to be to protect the innocent, to mete out justice--not for mindless vengeance.

Otherwise the Blood War would have turned all the fiends into Paladins on its own.


Swindlers are considered evil. Narcissists are considered evil. There is actual evil behavior and characteristics that doesn't simply fall into "beats kittens with puppies". Evil ISN'T just someone that goes around hurting and killing without good reason. Usually, there IS a reason. It's just a reason that is not focused on a virtue. Someone may be a slaver and view other races as inferior. Someone may be a swindler and believe that it is perfectly acceptable to abuse loopholes and trust because hey, it's going to happen to you eventually and you gotta look out for yourself. Someone may be a complete narcissist and pursue their own self glorification above all else, even the sacrifice of others. All of these are evil. All of these add moral complexity beyond someone who has a handlebar mustache and randomly ties women to train tracks.

There's a difference between an act that is Evil--what you describe here--and a person who is of an Evil alignment. The first doesn't register (except for a few noted exceptions).

A person who only does occasional Evil--even if he's consistent in which Evil acts he commits--is not necessarily of an Evil alignment. It would take an incredible amount of "minor" Evil acts for a person to actually be of an Evil alignment if he insists on not doing "major" acts--and at that point, it doesn't matter anyway. The sheer amount will damn him on their own.

The slaver is Evil and absolutely a valid target. His reasons for being a slaver do not matter. (EDIT: Under normal circumstances, that is. It is possible to have a non-Evil slaver, but it is not what is generally thought of when the term is brought up, and it is a complicated subject, so I won't go into it here.)


Paladins have detect evil not to find things to slaughter. It is far from a "get out of jail free card" and much more of a tool that should be used and the results considered. Otherwise all you promote is the gamification of the ability. You just have paladins spamming it constantly for no damn reason and in this case having carte blance to slaughter people based on the results. It shouldn't be that simple. You should have to consider what about them is evil. Do they mean you harm? Is their evil malicious or selfish? I might not be Red Fel here but I feel safe to say that evil has depth and breath more than just "yo. kill this dude because he's bad".

I agree. It isn't "that simple". It is far, far from what a Paladin is supposed to be--exemplars of Good. But it is still a viable Paladin. As long as they don't cross the line to become the monsters themselves.

[Yukitsu]

Swindlers are considered evil. Narcissists are considered evil. There is actual evil behavior and characteristics that doesn't simply fall into "beats kittens with puppies". Evil ISN'T just someone that goes around hurting and killing without good reason. Usually, there IS a reason. It's just a reason that is not focused on a virtue. Someone may be a slaver and view other races as inferior. Someone may be a swindler and believe that it is perfectly acceptable to abuse loopholes and trust because hey, it's going to happen to you eventually and you gotta look out for yourself. Someone may be a complete narcissist and pursue their own self glorification above all else, even the sacrifice of others. All of these are evil. All of these add moral complexity beyond someone who has a handlebar mustache and randomly ties women to train tracks.

None of these examples were particularly evil until you added that they go around hurting people. A narcissist? Not at all evil. Someone that is willing and does sacrifice others? Absolutely evil. Swindler that is just stealing, lying and cheating? Probably not bad enough that I'd card them as evil. A slaver that looks down on others? He's literally making his living by confining other people, who cares that he thinks they're beneath him.

Whether or not what they are doing is good or evil is not particularly complex in your examples. You've simply added other reasons to why they are like that, but the two that are actually definitely hurting people are ones that a paladin should absolutely have licence to smite, not because they're narcissistic or because they hold themselves above others, it's because one sacrifices people and the other is a slaver.

The problem I have with your point of view is not that villains can't have complex motives or points of view. It's that unless they're actually doing something that is enough to warrant their soul being condemned to an eternity of torture for their crimes, they aren't evil. Frankly given the choice between the two I'd rather be neutral and accidentally killed by a paladin than a minor evil who died naturally.


Paladins have detect evil not to find things to slaughter. It is far from a "get out of jail free card" and much more of a tool that should be used and the results considered. Otherwise all you promote is the gamification of the ability. You just have paladins spamming it constantly for no damn reason and in this case having carte blance to slaughter people based on the results. It shouldn't be that simple. You should have to consider what about them is evil. Do they mean you harm? Is their evil malicious or selfish? I might not be Red Fel here but I feel safe to say that evil has depth and breath more than just "yo. kill this dude because he's bad".

It is a game, I don't know why I would care to go so far out of the way to avoid that. Have you read the books on alignment in D&D? By default it is not a shades of grey morally complex philosophically profound system, if I wanted that I'd use a better system for it that didn't have neat and tidy little tags that said "good" or "evil." It literally has meta constructs that makes those labels into a massive fundamental "us vs. them".

[marphod]

Familiars are just regular magical beasts. They do need to breathe.

You're suggesting murder via negligent ignorance.

Dumb is not Good.

And quoting out of context is a poor debate tactic. You'll notice the VERY NEXT SENTENCE had a solution for living creatures. ( a lead lined box.)

(Also, it is hard to be negligent -- failing to use appropriate forethought -- and ignorant -- uninformed and therefore incapable of making the aforementioned appropriate forethought -- at the same time.)

[Taelas]

Not if you are ignorant because of negligence (such as failing to research a particular topic). :smallwink:

[Nifft]

And quoting out of context is a poor debate tactic. You'll notice the VERY NEXT SENTENCE had a solution for living creatures. ( a lead lined box.) If you read what I quoted, which was something you wrote, you might notice that the upper sentence does mention a lead-lined box.

And yet, after that, you brought up the idea that the topic under discussion didn't need to breathe. (And you misspelled "breathe", but whatever.)

Are you now trying to claim that you weren't intending to discuss the topic -- which was a mage's familiar -- when you brought up the idea about Evil things which don't need to breathe?

Was that just random verbal diarrhea with no relation to the topic?

Protip: not owning up to your mistake is a very poor debate tactic.


(Also, it is hard to be negligent -- failing to use appropriate forethought -- and ignorant -- uninformed and therefore incapable of making the aforementioned appropriate forethought -- at the same time.) Frequently -- when -- someone -- is -- ignorant -- of -- a -- topic -- it's -- due -- specifically -- to -- either -- their -- own -- negligence -- or -- the -- negligence -- of -- their -- educators.

[hamishspence]

One of the campaign setting books - I forget which one - described roughly one third of the population as being Evil. Not necessarily murderous, all-hating and life-devouring Evil; just day-to-day Evil, like slumlords who pocket the money that should maintain their properties, greedy bankers who foreclose on homes in winter, and jerkwad guardsmen who handle suspects just a bit harder than they need to, with just a bit too much glee. Ordinary mundane people whose biggest crimes are being just a bit crueler, a bit angrier, a bit colder-hearted than everyone else.

Imprisoning them would probably be appropriate. Chewing them out would certainly be merited. Killing them would be a disproportionately Evil act.

Because here's another thing, something that most Good characters comprehend - there is a vast spectrum of options between "ignore it" and "killin' time." You can stop Evil - whether it's mundane, day-to-day Evil or vast, cosmic Evil - in many ways, and not all of them involve the liberal application of forged steel to tender flesh. Particularly the former. And disproportionate retribution, even though the recipient may deserve some form of judgment, is not the Good way.

That would be Eberron Campaign Setting. Other non-Eberron books suggest that a Paladin shouldn't be trying to kill everyone that they scan that pings Evil. Drow of the Underdark, for example, said basically that "Just as a paladin doesn't (or shouldn't) try to kill everyone in a surface town that detects as evil - so they shouldn't be attacking everything Evil in a drow city, either".

Quintessenial Paladin 2 (3rd party) discussed two common alignment models.

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.

[rmnimoc]

It's easy to paint evil characters with a brush that they're all malicious and terrible forces that will stab you in the stomach for the fun of it. But that isn't a fair depiction of evil and only justifies murder hobos.


Wut.

No, seriously, what?

Just to make sure I understood the word we were talking about here I looked up the definition. Evil(adj):profoundly immoral and malevolent.

Yeah, I can see why we paint Evil characters with the brush labeled evil. It's the same reason we paint rocky things with rock colored paint and leafy things with leaf colored paint. Sure, you can paint a rocky thing like a leaf, but it's still a rock.

I get that definitions in D&D don't always match up with their real world definitions, but if they didn't mean evil they should have called the alignment jerk or unpleasant.

If you ping as evil, your soul is going to Hell to be tortured until there is nothing left of it that's you as you were in life. If whatever you are saying the Evil not so evil dude is doing is bad enough that all the gods got together and said "Yeah, Hell seems like a fair punishment for that", then summary execution is probably also fair.

[Xuldarinar]

I think one problem here is that D&D morality isn't quite right. Actions are held as their alignment no matter what, yet we are expected somehow to play good aligned murder hobos. The game demands subjectivity, yet how it describes things is contradictory to this and at times to itself. Alignment is somehow absolute in description, yet there is a disconnect here.



Let me frame the questions with a literary example, see if that helps. Lets use Elric of Melniboné, as he is one I am familiar with and D&D has defined him, if I recall correctly, as CE. In fact, he's been discussed in almost every D&D book, if not every D&D book, that also uses the term "Antihero" and the works he is from helped shape D&D's 9 alignment system.


Now lets say you were, for what ever reason, adventuring with him as part of your party.


Would killing Elric, provided he isn't hostile to you, be considered evil?

Would betraying Elric be considered evil, if he was not going to betray you? If a good cleric did so, would he need to atone?


Edit: though perhaps contributing to the discussion, I've dug up my take on the alignment system, in spite of the contradictions.


Free-will is both a blessing and a curse. There are those who use their free-will poorly, taking from the free-wills of others without any greater reason than their own pleasure (Chaotic Evil). Those that embrace freedom and use their free-will to treat others with compassion are those to look to, for these are beings unrestrained and capable of great expression (Chaotic Good). Order can be used to give direction to good and to hold back many from falling into darkness, leading the sheep towards greener pastures, not at the cost of free-will but at the cost of some freedoms (Lawful Good). Sadly, order can just as easily be abused by people's own ambitions, cruelty and selfishness supporting the laws which some press upon others (Lawful Evil). There are men who wish to do good, and accept a balance of freedoms and rules (Neutral Good), and men who wish to do harm to others, bound to neither anarchy nor tyranny (Neutral Evil). Some embrace free-will and freedom alike, but care little for right or wrong, doing as they please and doing as much harm as good (Chaotic Neutral). Others obsess over rules, repressing freedom for it goes against the order of things, the system. It is amoral but not immoral (Lawful Neutral). And then there are those that fall on all lines. Those that are neither moral nor immoral, neither bound to the laws of man nor do they throw caution to the wind. Some embrace this, others lack the capacity to go anywhere else (Neutral).

But there are many that go against these arbitrary labels. The man who kills all save for women and children is the same as a man who will commit atrocities to protect those they care for, held back only by their compassion and rules, conscious or subconscious, that separate them from the truly fallen (Lawful Evil). Then again, there are those who in their free-will more often commit atrocities, perhaps it is because the society in which they grew was vile and such things are deemed at times acceptable in their own minds, but because of their free-will they will still preform acts of good, for it is something they wish to do but its a concept they cannot hope to truly embody (Chaotic Evil). If you kill a man it is evil, for you take away his free-will, not to mention his life. But if you kill a man for there is no other way to protect, we fall towards the grey.

Free-will and freedom are differing concepts. Freedom is the ability to say and do as you please without the rules and actions of others getting in the way, free-will is the ability to do as you please regardless. One is to move unrestrained, the other is the ability to move at all.

[hamishspence]

If you ping as evil, your soul is going to Hell to be tortured until there is nothing left of it that's you as you were in life. If whatever you are saying the Evil not so evil dude is doing is bad enough that all the gods got together and said "Yeah, Hell seems like a fair punishment for that", then summary execution is probably also fair.

One major reason to redeem somebody - is that the Lower Planes isn't a "fair punishment" - that it's ludicrously severe, and that you're saving them, from a fate they don't "deserve".

[Crake]

One major reason to redeem somebody - is that the Lower Planes isn't a "fair punishment" - that it's ludicrously severe, and that you're saving them, from a fate they don't "deserve".

Not only that, but every soul that goes to hell simply makes the armies of evil that little bit stronger.

[Taelas]

Edit: though perhaps contributing to the discussion, I've dug up my take on the alignment system, in spite of the contradictions.
Free-will is both a blessing and a curse. There are those who use their free-will poorly, taking from the free-wills of others without any greater reason than their own pleasure (Chaotic Evil). Those that embrace freedom and use their free-will to treat others with compassion are those to look to, for these are beings unrestrained and capable of great expression (Chaotic Good). Order can be used to give direction to good and to hold back many from falling into darkness, leading the sheep towards greener pastures, not at the cost of free-will but at the cost of some freedoms (Lawful Good). Sadly, order can just as easily be abused by people's own ambitions, cruelty and selfishness supporting the laws which some press upon others (Lawful Evil). There are men who wish to do good, and accept a balance of freedoms and rules (Neutral Good), and men who wish to do harm to others, bound to neither anarchy nor tyranny (Neutral Evil). Some embrace free-will and freedom alike, but care little for right or wrong, doing as they please and doing as much harm as good (Chaotic Neutral). Others obsess over rules, repressing freedom for it goes against the order of things, the system. It is amoral but not immoral (Lawful Neutral). And then there are those that fall on all lines. Those that are neither moral nor immoral, neither bound to the laws of man nor do they throw caution to the wind. Some embrace this, others lack the capacity to go anywhere else (Neutral).

But there are many that go against these arbitrary labels. The man who kills all save for women and children is the same as a man who will commit atrocities to protect those they care for, held back only by their compassion and rules, conscious or subconscious, that separate them from the truly fallen (Lawful Evil). Then again, there are those who in their free-will more often commit atrocities, perhaps it is because the society in which they grew was vile and such things are deemed at times acceptable in their own minds, but because of their free-will they will still preform acts of good, for it is something they wish to do but its a concept they cannot hope to truly embody (Chaotic Evil). If you kill a man it is evil, for you take away his free-will, not to mention his life. But if you kill a man for there is no other way to protect, we fall towards the grey.

Free-will and freedom are differing concepts. Freedom is the ability to say and do as you please without the rules and actions of others getting in the way, free-will is the ability to do as you please regardless. One is to move unrestrained, the other is the ability to move at all.

It is a Good act to kill to save a life. Period. Any other stance makes the alignment system incomprehensible and unworkable (not to mention makes the entire Paladin class pointless in the extreme).


One major reason to redeem somebody - is that the Lower Planes isn't a "fair punishment" - that it's ludicrously severe, and that you're saving them, from a fate they don't "deserve".

It is severe, but they also deserve it. (In fact, many Evil characters revel in their punishment, rising through the ranks of devils or demons.)

Your opinion would shatter the system. It would make it literally impossible to play a Good adventurer (especially Paladins).

[hamishspence]

It is a Good act to kill to save a life. Period.

And it's Justifiable Homicide, and not Murder, to kill to save a murder-victim from somebody attempting to murder them.

But that doesn't mean that "killing to save a life" is always good. The obvious example being "murdering someone for their organs - to give a life-saving transplant to your loved one".



Your opinion would shatter the system. It would make it literally impossible to play a Good adventurer (especially Paladins).

Why? Just because someone doesn't deserve to be "tortured for eternity" - doesn't mean that redeeming them is always possible - given circumstances like "saving someone from an aggressor" may require killing.

[Segev]

This is actually just wrong.

A Lawful character would absolutely want them to be punished, and assuming they were in a position to do so, they would carry it out.

The problem is, most Lawful characters aren't in such a position, and they require a burden of proof to show the person who is--and as Lawful characters, they would prefer to follow the established order.

Oh, sure. He knows this guy's done something wrong. He wants him punished. But as a Lawful person, he wants him punished for the correct crime (and with the correct, prescribed punishment). If con artistry is punished by having one's tongue cut out, and thievery by having one's hand cut off, the Lawful person who knows that this disreputable scumbag has done something illegal, but doesn't know what, isn't going to cut off his hand and hope he was a thief; he's going to gather the proof that this man is a thief or a con artist and seek the CORRECT punishment to be inflicted.

Knowing the guy is evil can be cause to launch an investigation! It probably should be! But it cannot be cause enough to launch into punishment for unspecified crimes.

Even the CG person wants to know for what, specifically, the guy pings as evil, because even a CG vigilante who does play judge, jury, and executioner wants to do all three jobs properly. That means knowing WHY he's guilty so the punishment can suit the crime.

[Yukitsu]

I think one problem here is that D&D morality isn't quite right. Actions are held as their alignment no matter what, yet we are expected somehow to play good aligned murder hobos. The game demands subjectivity, yet how it describes things is contradictory to this and at times to itself. Alignment is somehow absolute in description, yet there is a disconnect here.


Personally I think that unless you want to spring a specifically gritty, low fantasy shades of grey game of D&D, the game doesn't really demand any subjectivity. At its core, D&D is basically a struggle of good guys vs. bad guys where everyone has clear labels that can be detected for your convenience and the system runs smoothest when you're playing it that way. The problem is that a lot of people are starting to question some of the mentalities of the game and want to add more moral complexity to it. I find that inherently more contradictory than anything else, if I want moral complexity I get rid of the outer planes, aligned energies and all of the D&D alignment system.

Edit: It's partly the good deities that outright said that the people who go to those planes deserve their fate. It's not the minor evils being punished that they opposed, it was that evil forces were tempting people into committing evils. The arbiters of good and evil have said that if someone lives that path, they deserve that fate.

[Draco_Lord]

Personally I think that unless you want to spring a specifically gritty, low fantasy shades of grey game of D&D, the game doesn't really demand any subjectivity. At its core, D&D is basically a struggle of good guys vs. bad guys where everyone has clear labels that can be detected for your convenience and the system runs smoothest when you're playing it that way. The problem is that a lot of people are starting to question some of the mentalities of the game and want to add more moral complexity to it. I find that inherently more contradictory than anything else, if I want moral complexity I get rid of the outer planes, aligned energies and all of the D&D alignment system.

Edit: It's partly the good deities that outright said that the people who go to those planes deserve their fate. It's not the minor evils being punished that they opposed, it was that evil forces were tempting people into committing evils. The arbiters of good and evil have said that if someone lives that path, they deserve that fate.

Out of pure curiosity. In such game where you do remove alignment, how do you deal with classes that rely heavily on it? Paladin being the prime example.

[marphod]

It is a Good act to kill to save a life. Period. Any other stance makes the alignment system incomprehensible and unworkable (not to mention makes the entire Paladin class pointless in the extreme).


Uh, no.

It is a Good act to kill someone who is knowingly committing an unjustifiable homicide. (well, usually. See the end of the Green Mile for a counterpoint).

It is not a Good act to kill the Kingdom's executioner acting on the rightful and righteous orders of the King. It isn't even a Good act to do that if the soon-to-be-victim has been framed (You're trading one innocent life for another, and not your own). (It is a good act to STOP the execution, obviously)

It is not a Good act to stop the Paladin from putting the BBEG to the sword for a right and righteous reason. It may not be a Good act to stop the Paladin from putting the BBEG to the sword for an inaccurate reason, if there is a right and righteous reason to do so.

[Xuldarinar]

Looking over BoED, violence and thus killing has its own section of discussion. Paraphrasing:

The cause of good expects and often demands that violence be brought against its enemies, but; Violence for good must have just cause, which includes something evil but it sill must be provoked. Violence must have good intentions.
Violence cannot be considered good when against noncombatants, or when evil methods are implemented.

So.. theres that.


Out of pure curiosity. In such game where you do remove alignment, how do you deal with classes that rely heavily on it? Paladin being the prime example.

I think pathfinder deals with that nicely under their rules for using subjective morality.

[Nifft]

Uh, no.

It is a Good act to kill someone who is knowingly committing an unjustifiable homicide. (well, usually. See the end of the Green Mile for a counterpoint).

It is not a Good act to kill the Kingdom's executioner acting on the rightful and righteous orders of the King. It isn't even a Good act to do that if the soon-to-be-victim has been framed (You're trading one innocent life for another, and not your own). (It is a good act to STOP the execution, obviously)

It is not a Good act to stop the Paladin from putting the BBEG to the sword for a right and righteous reason. It may not be a Good act to stop the Paladin from putting the BBEG to the sword for an inaccurate reason, if there is a right and righteous reason to do so.

Agree.

I think the strongest thing that can be said is:

"It can be a Good act to surprise face-Smite an Evil creature."

... and also:

"It can be a Good act to refrain from executing an Evil creature."

Circumstances are important.

- - EDIT - -


Out of pure curiosity. In such game where you do remove alignment, how do you deal with classes that rely heavily on it? Paladin being the prime example.

What I did was untangle conduct from alignment.

Paladins, Clerics, and Druids all have some patron -- either a divinity, or a (semi-)sentient philosophy, or an unknown patron which liked the cut of their jib.

Patrons have standards for behavior. You don't lose access to your spells because your alignment went out of, er, alignment, but rather because you managed to offend your patron somehow.

(The Atonement spell in this case is basically like a nice juicy burnt offering of XP and chocolate in the hopes of getting off the couch and back in bed with your patron.)

[Scheming Wizard]

Most evil characters and creatures don't go to the lower planes if they die. Only evil characters who are terrified of meeting their deity of worship in the afterlife make deals with devils to go to the nine hells. Sometimes npcs make deals with devils in life that cause them to go the nine hells when they die. Npcs also sometimes worship archdevils or take archdevil prestige classes that cause them to go to hell as well.

Likewise npcs can make deals with demons, but mostly it is people who never served a deity at all and ended up in the wall of the faithless. Demons then steal people out of the wall of the faithless to turn them into demons. Most demons weren't even something else originally they sprung out of the evil chaos pit at the bottom of the 666 planes of the abyss.

Most evil creatures have a deity and go to serve that deity upon death. Drow go and serve Lolth. Orcs go and serve Gruumsh. Evil Dragons go and serve Tiamat. So very rarely is killing someone who isn't a demon cultist going to increase the population of hell. You are also weakening that evil deity on the material plane in someway, because deity's get strength from their material plane worshipers not the worshipers in their planar realms.

[Taelas]

And it's Justifiable Homicide, and not Murder, to kill to save a murder-victim from somebody attempting to murder them.

But that doesn't mean that "killing to save a life" is always good. The obvious example being "murdering someone for their organs - to give a life-saving transplant to your loved one".
All right, that was poorly worded. It is an unquestionably Good act to kill someone directly threatening innocent lives. That is what I meant.


Why? Just because someone doesn't deserve to be "tortured for eternity" - doesn't mean that redeeming them is always possible - given circumstances like "saving someone from an aggressor" may require killing.

Because it makes it impossible to do anything. An innocent that dies is not condemned to torture for eternity. If the Evil character does not deserve said torture, then it makes more sense to let the Evil character kill the innocent -- who will, after all, have a peaceful afterlife. That is not how Paladins work. It would also be an Evil act to condemn someone who doesn't deserve it to eternal torture. If the punishment is excessive and undeserved, then the Evil character is not responsible for how and where he ends up.


Oh, sure. He knows this guy's done something wrong. He wants him punished. But as a Lawful person, he wants him punished for the correct crime (and with the correct, prescribed punishment). If con artistry is punished by having one's tongue cut out, and thievery by having one's hand cut off, the Lawful person who knows that this disreputable scumbag has done something illegal, but doesn't know what, isn't going to cut off his hand and hope he was a thief; he's going to gather the proof that this man is a thief or a con artist and seek the CORRECT punishment to be inflicted.
Well, yes. But if it is not possible to determine the exact nature of his crime -- but he retains the knowledge of his guilt -- then he will inflict a more general punishment rather than a specific one.


Knowing the guy is evil can be cause to launch an investigation! It probably should be! But it cannot be cause enough to launch into punishment for unspecified crimes.
It absolutely can be, if the Lawful person is in a position of authority to mete out punishments. He knows the person is guilty -- that is all that he requires to determine that the criminal must be punished. Now, Lawful characters aren't all cut from the same mold. You could easily have a Lawful character who is so rigid in his beliefs that he would demand only the correct punishment, even to the point where he would rather the criminal escape justice altogether than be punished for something other than his specific crime. But I honestly don't see that being much of an issue. It's a common theme in police dramas, though. But then, those police officers aren't in that position of authority -- they require proof to show a judge. The judge, though, if he knows, magically, that the person is guilty...?


Even the CG person wants to know for what, specifically, the guy pings as evil, because even a CG vigilante who does play judge, jury, and executioner wants to do all three jobs properly. That means knowing WHY he's guilty so the punishment can suit the crime.

I disagree. A Chaotic character wouldn't care about whether the punishment suit the crime, at least not to the level that the Lawful person would. They are the ones who would tamper with evidence to bring a criminal to justice, even on wrongful charges -- as long as the criminal IS punished.


Uh, no.

It is a Good act to kill someone who is knowingly committing an unjustifiable homicide. (well, usually. See the end of the Green Mile for a counterpoint).

It is not a Good act to kill the Kingdom's executioner acting on the rightful and righteous orders of the King. It isn't even a Good act to do that if the soon-to-be-victim has been framed (You're trading one innocent life for another, and not your own). (It is a good act to STOP the execution, obviously)

It is not a Good act to stop the Paladin from putting the BBEG to the sword for a right and righteous reason. It may not be a Good act to stop the Paladin from putting the BBEG to the sword for an inaccurate reason, if there is a right and righteous reason to do so.

Right. As I said, poorly worded on my part.

[Yukitsu]

Out of pure curiosity. In such game where you do remove alignment, how do you deal with classes that rely heavily on it? Paladin being the prime example.

I don't use them in a system that has a lot of moral ambiguity since it's a morally black and white class.

[marphod]

Out of pure curiosity. In such game where you do remove alignment, how do you deal with classes that rely heavily on it? Paladin being the prime example.

For my house rules, I've not removed alignment, exactly. Alignments exist, but not inherently as a character attribute.

Clerics pick up Auras based on their deities. Paladins get Lawful (if their deity is Lawful and not Evil) and Good (if their deity is Good and not Chaotic) auras if appropriate. Creatures associated with aligned planes get the appropriate auras. Which means EVERY Tiefling has an Evil aura and every Aasimar has a Good Aura. It is possible for characters not associated with aligned planes or deities to get an aligned aura, but it takes something extreme. The strength of the Aura is based both on the power level of what the creature is, but how strong that tie is.

And there is nothing stopping a Tiefling (Evil) half-Fey (Chaotic; Fey are associated with the Chaotic Alignment for other houseruled reasons) Cleric of a Lawful-Good God pinging all 4 alignment types. Ditto with an Aassimar with Construct grafts (Constructs are associated with Law in my ruleset) in service to a Devil Prince.

Every Tiefling can be Smote as Evil by a Paladin. Every Aasimar can be smote as good by a blackguard (or what have you).

Most people have a negligable aura (patron deities, but doesn't show up with Detect Foo unless you REALLY scrutinize for a while) or none. This remains true for the lives of most people, including non-divine PCs. It also means that in order to use an aligned magic item, you actually have to get an aura from somewhere. I've not yet had to deal with cases where the item functions differently for one extreme from another. I'll burn that bridge when I come to it.

[Hecuba]

Is killing a non-hostile evil character considered evil?
Is betraying an evil person considered evil if they were not going to betray you?
Do you think a good cleric would need to atone for this betrayal?
Do you think this would cause an alignment shift?


(numbering added)


In general, yes: you can murder evil people just as much as you can murder good people. Not all killing is murder, but murder does not cease to be murder if the victim is a bad person.
Not unless you would hold betrayal in general to be evil. I would instead call it a chaotic act.
No, but a cleric of a lawful deity might, depending on the severity of the betrayal.
Character alignment deals in trends of action: you'd be hard pressed to convince me that a single discrete action should ever cause an alignment shift.

[Taelas]

Alignment is more than simply tracking trends. It is also a measure of how the fundamental forces of the cosmos react to you. While I agree that it is not something that generally happens, a strong enough act aligned with a different alignment than their own is absolutely enough to change how the universe perceives you (and conversely, how spells and such interact with you). Alignment isn't a straight-jacket, so even if your alignment changed, you wouldn't necessarily act any differently.

As for betrayal, while it would tend towards Chaos, there are Lawful betrayals too. (Giving up a close friend to the proper authorities after he confides in you about a crime he committed, for example.)

[Hawkstar]

The way I look at it is that most evil people are cruel, selfish, violent, and manipulative individuals. Someone can be all of these things without committing murder, torture, and other similar extremes. What about the drunk who is physically abusive to his family? Is he scum? Certainly. Is it right for the paladin to ring his door bell and when he answers with a "The hell do you want?" stick a sword through his gut? I don't think so.I do! If you're a ****ty enough person that you can ping as Evil, you deserve every sword that goes into your body, and a few more for good measure. If you're not so ****ty that Good does not justify removing you from the world, you're not Evil. The idea that Evil has a right to life too is a cosmic Neutral viewpoint, not Good. Good is absolutely intolerant of Evil. Of course... one of the primary pillars of Good is Trust, so betrayal usually ]is an Evil, not Chaotic, act.

The "Neutral" gulf is pretty wide. The "Neutral/Evil" dividing point is the Moral Event Horizon.

And the "Leaves a Power Vaccuum for Greater Evil to fill" is just bull**** as well. Or, a good thing, because now you have more evil to smite. In the cosmic war, there is a finite amount of Evil, Neutral and Good (Constantly recycled into all three). Destroying Evil reduces Evil. The vacuum that results from the removal of Evil gets filled by Good, Neutral, AND Evil (Based on however much is on hand) not "Twice as much Evil". And, when Evil tries filling that vaccuum, you smite it out of existence as well.

Any "Good" that seeks to 'maintain the balance of Good and Evil" (Such as in Dragonlance) is not Good at all, and is, by textbook definition, Neutral.

There are people who believe that Neutrality is the morally superior option, though.

[Segev]

Well, yes. But if it is not possible to determine the exact nature of his crime -- but he retains the knowledge of his guilt -- then he will inflict a more general punishment rather than a specific one.

(...)

A Chaotic character wouldn't care about whether the punishment suit the crime, at least not to the level that the Lawful person would. They are the ones who would tamper with evidence to bring a criminal to justice, even on wrongful charges -- as long as the criminal IS punished.

No. "He's evil" doesn't automatically mean he's actually acted on it in a punishment-worthy way.

He could fantasize about raping and murdering elves, go out of his way to say nasty things and leave scathing remarks where they'll find them, and work hard to drive them away through legal wrangling. He might use every ounce of his personal power to make them miserable...without actually attacking them or harming their property.

He's evil. He's a nasty, unlovable man. And maybe the town he came from knows it, but he's settled here in this mining town of dwarves, gnomes, and humans were there are no elves, and so the only hint of his attitude problem is when the odd elven adventurer comes by. And he's not a moron; he doesn't mess with obvious adventurers. He just avoids them, and imagines them dying horribly in their next dungeon.

Mr. Paladin - or even Mr. NG or CG cleric using detect evil - knows he's evil. Knows he's probably been mean cruel and awful to somebody at some point. But without knowing for what he deserves retribution, acting on this is not a good act. It's a morally neutral one. It's not justice at that point; it's just justifying their own desire to be cruel.

If somebody is evil, it's possible for the CG to find out what they've done, even if it can't be proven enough to satisfy an LG person. But failure to make the effort, and just assuming you have the right because they ping... that's not good. Seeking excuse to pick on people is not good. And that's what that is. You HAVE to be able to say why you're punishing them for it to be in any way a good act of retribution.

"You know what you did!" is not sufficient.

[Yukitsu]

In D&D, just thinking something doesn't influence your alignment from anything I've read. It does actually require that they do those sorts of evil things. I definitely wouldn't consider someone evil for having evil thoughts.

I mean apparently your average human being fantasizes murdering people on a fairly regular basis, so thought probably isn't the best metric for whether or not things are evil.

[Telok]

It is a Good act to kill to save a life. Period. Any other stance makes the alignment system incomprehensible and unworkable (not to mention makes the entire Paladin class pointless in the extreme).
Actually the D&D alignments system is incomprehensible and unworkable. For evidence see every discussion of it in the last 40 years.


Out of pure curiosity. In such game where you do remove alignment, how do you deal with classes that rely heavily on it? Paladin being the prime example.
I make all alignment tags into supernatural auras. You only get an aura if your NPC/monster stat block would have the [Good/Evil/Law/Chaos] tag. For bonus points anything with Int, Wis, or Chr as a nonability can't have an alignment. This means that unintelligent undead lack alignments. However that alignment aura sticks to everything you possess and everything you do. If you are [Law] tagged then all your spells are [Law] spells, all your gear is [Law] gear, your home is a [Law] area. Spells only retain their alignment tag if it conflicts with your aura, trying to cast those spells simply fails.

You can only get an aura through supernatural means. You may be blessed by a god, be a supernatural creature, or be under the effect of a spell that gives you such an aura, but just being a nasty mass murderer doesn't give you a supernatural aura.

The nice thing about my method is that just casting Protection From X spells can't change anyone's alignment. By BOED standards you can spam aligned spells untill your alignment is whatever you want it to be. Or call up swarms of Celestial/Fiendish/Axiomatic/Chaotic rats and kill those untill you are of the desired alignment. It's called 'faction grinding'.

[Grytorm]

Its always interesting reading alignment threads, seeing the difference between people who try and use the game rules to adjudicate the scenario and the people who use the rules to produce the broad idea and then try and develop answers based on the outlines combined with their opinions. I do fall on the side of the second pattern myself, but it is interesting to see both sides.

[Taelas]

No. "He's evil" doesn't automatically mean he's actually acted on it in a punishment-worthy way.
No, you don't understand.

That is exactly what it means!

Hence, y'know, the whole eternal damnation thing.


He could fantasize about raping and murdering elves, go out of his way to say nasty things and leave scathing remarks where they'll find them, and work hard to drive them away through legal wrangling. He might use every ounce of his personal power to make them miserable...without actually attacking them or harming their property.

He's evil. He's a nasty, unlovable man. And maybe the town he came from knows it, but he's settled here in this mining town of dwarves, gnomes, and humans were there are no elves, and so the only hint of his attitude problem is when the odd elven adventurer comes by. And he's not a moron; he doesn't mess with obvious adventurers. He just avoids them, and imagines them dying horribly in their next dungeon.

Mr. Paladin - or even Mr. NG or CG cleric using detect evil - knows he's evil. Knows he's probably been mean cruel and awful to somebody at some point. But without knowing for what he deserves retribution, acting on this is not a good act. It's a morally neutral one. It's not justice at that point; it's just justifying their own desire to be cruel.
I reject your basic premise. This man would not register via detect evil. He's indeed a thoroughly nasty person. But unless he crosses the line, he is not aligned with Evil.


If somebody is evil, it's possible for the CG to find out what they've done, even if it can't be proven enough to satisfy an LG person. But failure to make the effort, and just assuming you have the right because they ping... that's not good. Seeking excuse to pick on people is not good. And that's what that is. You HAVE to be able to say why you're punishing them for it to be in any way a good act of retribution.

"You know what you did!" is not sufficient.
For most Good people, you'd be right. Even most paladins. But not all of them. There is more than one way to play a LG alignment, and more than one way to play a Paladin.

[Mechalich]

The "Neutral" gulf is pretty wide.

In discussion of alignment in D&D this cannot be stated enough. In the traditional D&D Great Wheel cosmology the gulf between fully good and fully evil is multiple infinite planes wide.

Neutral behavior in D&D encompasses a great deal of what is considered to be Evil is most other moral systems. Look at something like Formians, an entire race of beings whose functional nature is basically 'all your territory is belong to us, resistance is futile, you will be curb-stomped and mind-slaved.' This is less-cuddly insectoid version of the Borg. Are they evil? No! They are considered flatly lawful neutral.

On the chaotic side creatures like chaos beasts reduce everything they touch to gibbering formlessness. Again, not evil.

Evil beings in D&D are bad news, really bad news. They hurt other people who don't deserve because they can and they like it. They aren't motivated by pragmatism or simply unfeeling, some part of them deep down revels in the suffering of others as an end it itself.

Truly evil beings in D&D don't consider being sent to the Lower Planes after death as a punishment - not deep down in their heart of hearts - they think of it as a reward, as going to the place where things work the way they actually should, and it's what they want.

So yeah, murdering your way through your problems, if you do it without malice, with consistency, and purely with pragmatic motives doesn't make you evil, it makes you the moral equivalent of a golem - neutral. This sort of emotional detachment is somewhat hard to maintain for emotional creatures like humans though, and it is easy to slide into motivated villainy from this point.

[hamishspence]

That might work for outsiders, but generally not for anything else.

In older editions, plenty of NPCs were evil-aligned, but, only a few, mostly higher level ones, "pinged on Detect Evil".

3.0-3.5 is exactly the same - except - detect evil is much more powerful (though it can still give false readings).




I reject your basic premise. This man would not register via detect evil. He's indeed a thoroughly nasty person. But unless he crosses the line, he is not aligned with Evil.


If "the line" is "regularly committing acts that would cause any Exalted character, Paladin of Freedom, Paladin, etc to lose their powers - then a character can become "aligned with evil" fairly quickly, without actually committing any individual moral offense "deserving of the death penalty".

[Frosty]

Smiting upon detecting evil is a horrible idea. Auras can be faked. You might accidentally kill an innocent. Smiting without fact-finding OR without active hostility from the target is evil.

[Taelas]

If "the line" is "regularly committing acts that would cause any Exalted character, Paladin of Freedom, Paladin, etc to lose their powers - then a character can become "aligned with evil" fairly quickly, without actually committing any individual moral offense "deserving of the death penalty".

That is not crossing the line. Paladins are held to a higher standard.


Smiting upon detecting evil is a horrible idea. Auras can be faked. You might accidentally kill an innocent. Smiting without fact-finding OR without active hostility from the target is evil.

It's a horrible idea, but it is not Evil, assuming it is done (as is generally the case with Paladins) to protect the innocent from Evil. If you do accidentally kill an innocent, then yes, you've committed an offense against your Code of Conduct, and you would Fall. But that's what atonement is for.

[Coidzor]

Your opinion would shatter the system. It would make it literally impossible to play a Good adventurer (especially Paladins).

Paladins can Paladin perfectly fine without premeditating murder. In fact, they tend to do better as Paladins when they don't.

Manslaughter is more up their alley, anyway.

[hamishspence]

It's a horrible idea, but it is not Evil, assuming it is done (as is generally the case with Paladins) to protect the innocent from Evil. If you do accidentally kill an innocent, then yes, you've committed an offense against your Code of Conduct, and you would Fall. But that's what atonement is for.

Actually, if you "accidentally kill an innocent" but "your heart was in the right place and you took reasonable precautions" - you won't Fall:

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

Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.





That is not crossing the line. Paladins are held to a higher standard.
An evil act is an evil act. Commit enough (however minor) and few or no Good acts - and you will gain an Evil alignment.

However, that's not the only way. Spells, like Morality Undone, or the DMG's Helm of Opposite Alignment - or just being born of an Always Evil species (like chromatic dragons) can result in an evil alignment despite the fact that no Evil acts were committed.

Humans "tend toward no alignment - not even Neutral". The idea that 99% of humans are Neutral and only a miniscule percentage are other alignments, is not consistent with any D&D edition.

[Sacrieur]

tl;dr being good is dumb and prevents you from doing 90% of the things.

Just pick evil. Then you can be as good as much as you want but don't have anyone shoving some idea of what they think is good down your throat. It also works because you can be selectively good to certain people but toss others to the wind. You can kill evil doers as much as you want and not touch anyone else and still be considered evil. Yay double standards!

[hamishspence]

tl;dr being good is dumb and prevents you from doing 90% of the things.

Not really. Violence in self-defence or defence of other is generally Not Evil - this can apply even if the aggressor is Neutral.

Sometimes killing Neutral enemies is not evil. Occasionally, killing even a Good enemy (perhaps one that is magically compelled into attacking you) is not evil.

Conversely, sometimes killing nonhostile Evil beings, is evil.

There can be overlap. You can have Chaotic Neutral people, guilty of "serious crimes" up before a paladin judge - the judge sentences them to death - the judge does not Fall.

But a paladin who, when a Chaotic Evil person has been brought before them on charges of jaywalking, sentences them to death because "all evil people caught, should be sentenced to death" would Fall, I'd say.

[Sacrieur]

Not really. Violence in self-defence or defence of other is generally Not Evil - this can apply even if the aggressor is Neutral.

Sometimes killing Neutral enemies is not evil. Occasionally, killing even a Good enemy (perhaps one that is magically compelled into attacking you) is not evil.

Conversely, sometimes killing nonhostile Evil beings, is evil.

There can be overlap. You can have Chaotic Neutral people, guilty of "serious crimes" up before a paladin judge - the judge sentences them to death - the judge does not Fall.

But a paladin who, when a Chaotic Evil person has been brought before them on charges of jaywalking, sentences them to death because "all evil people caught, should be sentenced to death" would Fall, I'd say.

And may the gods of GITP have mercy on your soul.

The countless threads of debate on this have convinced me of one thing: Evil characters can be as evil or good as they want without repercussion. Good characters must all behave like moral paragons at all times. I have a character who will kill any slaver he comes across.

A paladin who tries to do the same thing is going to have serious issues and have to explain his moral justification with a 1000 page dissertation on the subject.

[hamishspence]

Good characters don't have to be perfect - but they do need to avoid doing major evil, and be repentant when they do commit evil acts "in the heat of the moment" - if they wish to stay Good.

[Necroticplague]

Yes. Being evil is, in and of itself, not a crime worthy of death. One can be evil for minor things that have very little to do with morality, like casting a bunch of specific kinds of spells, or being a loyal member of their church (who happens to worship an Evil diety). Simply having your statue moved by a skeleton (animate dead+haunt shift) doesn't necessarily make you any more worthy of death then having it be moved by an elemental (making it into a golem).

[Rhyltran]

And may the gods of GITP have mercy on your soul.

The countless threads of debate on this have convinced me of one thing: Evil characters can be as evil or good as they want without repercussion. Good characters must all behave like moral paragons at all times. I have a character who will kill any slaver he comes across.

A paladin who tries to do the same thing is going to have serious issues and have to explain his moral justification with a 1000 page dissertation on the subject.

This is incorrect. A single evil act doesn't make you evil. If your good character runs around killing slavers that doesn't make him evil either. How many good deeds does he do in his career to make up for it? If your character is performing far more good acts than evil acts then he is a morally good aligned character. There's some people throwing around that a person must commit a "Really evil act" to get an evil alignment but that isn't the case and I'd like a page number that says anything of the sort. In reality, if you commit quite a bit more evil acts than good acts you are evil. It's a balancing system.

[Draco_Lord]

This is incorrect. A single evil act doesn't make you evil. If your good character runs around killing slavers that doesn't make him evil either. How many good deeds does he do in his career to make up for it? If your character is performing far more good acts than evil acts then he is a morally good aligned character. There's some people throwing around that a person must commit a "Really evil act" to get an evil alignment but that isn't the case and I'd like a page number that says anything of the sort. In reality, if you commit quite a bit more evil acts than good acts you are evil. It's a balancing system.

I think it is one of those "GM's Discretion" Kind of rules. And most DMs only seem to apply it if they do something REALLY evil. The standard example is blowing up a city. Of course, you can argue that does a lot of evil acts, if you count each kill as an act.

[Segev]

No, you don't understand.

That is exactly what it means!Well, if your PREMISE is that that's what it means, to the point where you're going to define it that way, then you're engaging in redefining things to the same point that "becuase this spell that saves orphans from fires by giving them pet dalmations has the [evil] tag, no matter how you use it you're evil" does. While I wo'nt deny that's the RAW, it's one of the actual flaws in the alignment system.


Hence, y'know, the whole eternal damnation thing.Ah, but those who are "eternally damned" are damned for specific crimes. The beings which condemn them know what they did and punish them for it. The whole point of afterlife reward/punishment is that you cannot hide your sins from such judges. Unlike mortal ones.



I reject your basic premise. This man would not register via detect evil. He's indeed a thoroughly nasty person. But unless he crosses the line, he is not aligned with Evil.So, deliberately making people miserable, seeking to ruin their lives, and otherwise drive them out by making things so untennable that they can't stay... isn't evil?

Or he's STOPPED being evil because he's lost his acceptable targets for evil and is living a neutral life? He's been redeemed because he just hasn't had reason to take out his evil intentions on any elves lately? Really?



It's a horrible idea, but it is not Evil, assuming it is done (as is generally the case with Paladins) to protect the innocent from Evil. If you do accidentally kill an innocent, then yes, you've committed an offense against your Code of Conduct, and you would Fall. But that's what atonement is for.Thing is, if Joe Bartender pings as evil, but he's not hurting anybody and you don't see any evidence of anybody being in danger, killing him is evil. At that point, you're killing him because you think he MIGHT do something in the future; you have no specific thing he's done in the past on which to base punishment, and you've no imminent proof that he's up to anything harmful right now.

And Atonement expressly cannot redeem a Paladin's powers if he fell for willfully committing an evil act. Willful ignorance and negligence is not "accidental." Unless the Paladin who blindfolds himself before careening full-speed through a town square on a heavy carriage is "accidentally" killing the children he runs over and thus can atone for that, too.


Actually, if you "accidentally kill an innocent" but "your heart was in the right place and you took reasonable precautions" - you won't Fall:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325aAgain, "accidentally" is a loaded word when you are deliberately taking a risk that you COULD be killing an innocent because it's more convenient/satisfying to kill everybody who pings evil without figuring out why they do and what, therefore, they deserve punishment for.


An evil act is an evil act. Commit enough (however minor) and few or no Good acts - and you will gain an Evil alignment.Precisely.

Ebeneezer Scrooge, by traditional interpretation of the character, was miserly and cruel about his penny-pinching. He spread misery and bile and sought to ruin everybody else's good cheer. Thousands of minor acts of evil, none of which are worthy of death, would nonetheless have caused him to show up on "detect evil."

[Sacrieur]

Good characters don't have to be perfect - but they do need to avoid doing major evil, and be repentant when they do commit evil acts "in the heat of the moment" - if they wish to stay Good.

Nope killing is evil period, even says as much in the srd.

There's a grey area where it's okay if you have absolutely no other choice.



This is incorrect. A single evil act doesn't make you evil.

Of course not, but it would make a paladin fall. And I never said it would make you evil.



If your good character runs around killing slavers that doesn't make him evil either. How many good deeds does he do in his career to make up for it? If your character is performing far more good acts than evil acts then he is a morally good aligned character. There's some people throwing around that a person must commit a "Really evil act" to get an evil alignment but that isn't the case and I'd like a page number that says anything of the sort. In reality, if you commit quite a bit more evil acts than good acts you are evil. It's a balancing system.

He's evil because of other stuff, but I was using him as an example of how an evil character can get away with doing a good thing without worrying about anything while a lawful good character would be stuck in a moral dilemma about what to do with all of these slavers mistreating people.

[Yukitsu]

tl;dr being good is dumb and prevents you from doing 90% of the things.

Just pick evil. Then you can be as good as much as you want but don't have anyone shoving some idea of what they think is good down your throat. It also works because you can be selectively good to certain people but toss others to the wind. You can kill evil doers as much as you want and not touch anyone else and still be considered evil. Yay double standards!

Yeah, that's how I always react to DMs that say that paladins can't do anything without suddenly falling. If I want to talk morality, It's not going to be at a D&D table, a DM that's trying to hamfist some moralistic message into his game pretty much always finds the players ignoring what he's talking about in my experience anyway. Myself included.

Especially when they muddle it further by saying that people who are really cranky like Scrooge are actually evil which I'd also reject even in a real world morality system.

[ShaneMRoth]

To the OP...

Do you have an escape plan for this Evil NPC?

If not, why not?

There is no reason to serve this NPC up on a platter to your players. He should have some strategy of getting away from the Murder Hobos once he has outlived his usefulness.

The plan doesn't have to be perfect.

It can even be foiled by the players.

But the NPC should have an exit strategy.

[Taelas]

Actually, if you "accidentally kill an innocent" but "your heart was in the right place and you took reasonable precautions" - you won't Fall:
Yes, but we are talking about a smite-on-ping Paladin. That's not taking reasonable precautions.


An evil act is an evil act. Commit enough (however minor) and few or no Good acts - and you will gain an Evil alignment.
Yes. But the amount matters. The sheer number of "minor" Evil acts you would have to do is enough to condemn you on their own -- as evidenced by the fact that you are now of an Evil alignment.


However, that's not the only way. Spells, like Morality Undone, or the DMG's Helm of Opposite Alignment - or just being born of an Always Evil species (like chromatic dragons) can result in an evil alignment despite the fact that no Evil acts were committed.
Always Evil species generally tend to have a supernatural reason for their alignment (such as fiends or chromatic dragons). It is extremely unlikely you're going to encounter a fiend that has committed no Evil acts in its existence. Not impossible... but so improbable that it might as well be.

Dragons are a whole other kettle of fish, mostly because they have alignments as soon as they crawl out of their eggs, and indeed are sentient creatures. There is no easy way to handle that.

If you were turned magically, then you are now Evil. Even if you haven't committed any Evil acts before, you are now more than ready to do so.

That really is the material point. Even if they haven't done anything yet, the fact that they are Evil means that (unless they are stopped first), they will do so -- or they wouldn't be Evil in the first place.


Humans "tend toward no alignment - not even Neutral". The idea that 99% of humans are Neutral and only a miniscule percentage are other alignments, is not consistent with any D&D edition.
I have never said 99% of humans are Neutral.


Yes. Being evil is, in and of itself, not a crime worthy of death. One can be evil for minor things that have very little to do with morality, like casting a bunch of specific kinds of spells, or being a loyal member of their church (who happens to worship an Evil diety).
No, you really cannot. That is not how the game works. Casting a bunch of spells isn't going to make you turn Evil in and of itself, unless you do nothing but cast [Evil] spells every single day for the rest of your life.

Also, "happens to worship an Evil deity"? What do you think Evil deities do? They represent Evil. A loyal member of their churches tends to do the same.


Simply having your statue moved by a skeleton (animate dead+haunt shift) doesn't necessarily make you any more worthy of death then having it be moved by an elemental (making it into a golem).
Skeletons are Evil.

You may disagree that mindless Undead should be Evil. (I personally do, and creating mindless Undead is not an Evil act when I DM.) But as long as they are Evil, you can't argue that a skeleton is moral-wise the same as a golem by RAW, because it's not correct.


Well, if your PREMISE is that that's what it means, to the point where you're going to define it that way, then you're engaging in redefining things to the same point that "becuase this spell that saves orphans from fires by giving them pet dalmations has the [evil] tag, no matter how you use it you're evil" does. While I wo'nt deny that's the RAW, it's one of the actual flaws in the alignment system.
I am not redefining anything.


Ah, but those who are "eternally damned" are damned for specific crimes. The beings which condemn them know what they did and punish them for it. The whole point of afterlife reward/punishment is that you cannot hide your sins from such judges. Unlike mortal ones.
No, they aren't. If you do not worship a specific deity (in which case you'd go to your deity's domain instead), you go to the Outer Plane that most closely matches your alignment when you die. If Joe Random Paladin puts on a helm of opposite alignment and becomes Chaotic Evil then falls dead of a heart attack two seconds later, he goes to the afterlife that corresponds to his alignment--which happens to be the Abyss.

I would consider going to the Abyss to be a punishment (at least until you rise enough through the ranks to be on top of the pecking order rather than on the bottom).


So, deliberately making people miserable, seeking to ruin their lives, and otherwise drive them out by making things so untennable that they can't stay... isn't evil?
It is. But an Evil act does not an Evil person make.


Or he's STOPPED being evil because he's lost his acceptable targets for evil and is living a neutral life? He's been redeemed because he just hasn't had reason to take out his evil intentions on any elves lately? Really?
I thought this person had never done anything personally against the targets of his bigotry? There is no redemption involved, then. He hasn't gone over the edge yet. He hasn't committed himself, hasn't aligned himself with Evil.

If he DID do it, but now no longer does, then he'd still be Evil and would still be a viable target--unless he makes amends for his previous actions.


Thing is, if Joe Bartender pings as evil, but he's not hurting anybody and you don't see any evidence of anybody being in danger, killing him is evil. At that point, you're killing him because you think he MIGHT do something in the future; you have no specific thing he's done in the past on which to base punishment, and you've no imminent proof that he's up to anything harmful right now.
I have the fact that he's Evil. It's not a good reason, but it IS a reason, and it is enough of a reason for a Paladin to not Fall--assuming the Paladin in question is the highest authority in the given locale. If he isn't, then he's breaking his Code of Conduct; he's failing to respect legitimate authority. They more than likely WILL demand precisely what you're asking.

If he is Evil but not active, then he did something in the past that he needs to be brought to justice for. If he is Evil and active, then you defend the innocent. Either way, it works.


And Atonement expressly cannot redeem a Paladin's powers if he fell for willfully committing an evil act. Willful ignorance and negligence is not "accidental." Unless the Paladin who blindfolds himself before careening full-speed through a town square on a heavy carriage is "accidentally" killing the children he runs over and thus can atone for that, too.
The Paladin is making a relatively reasonable judgement call--the person is Evil, he has done something to be worthy of that particular appellation, he was/is a threat to innocents, he must be stopped/brought to justice. If the Paladin is tricked and the person in question isn't Evil, then he would Fall for committing an act that is against his Code of Conduct (even if he was tricked, he didn't take proper precautions--which doesn't matter when he's right, but does when he's wrong).


Again, "accidentally" is a loaded word when you are deliberately taking a risk that you COULD be killing an innocent because it's more convenient/satisfying to kill everybody who pings evil without figuring out why they do and what, therefore, they deserve punishment for.
It absolutely is. I don't condone playing a Paladin that way. But that doesn't mean it isn't a viable way to do so. (It's also a road that very easily leads to becoming a blackguard.)


Ebeneezer Scrooge, by traditional interpretation of the character, was miserly and cruel about his penny-pinching. He spread misery and bile and sought to ruin everybody else's good cheer. Thousands of minor acts of evil, none of which are worthy of death, would nonetheless have caused him to show up on "detect evil."
Ebenezer Scrooge wasn't Evil. He does nothing overtly Evil whatsoever in the original A Christmas Carol. At worst, he talks down to people -- which, granted, he does do quite a lot. But the worst of his actions are focused entirely on his greed and his selfishness; how he refuses to give to charity, how he won't have dinner with his nephew, how he complains about having to pay full wages for Christmas Day to his clerk even though the man has the day off...

He is not particularly cruel except in the manner in which he dismisses people. But yes, he was absolutely a miser. That is not Evil.

The entire story is focused on how Scrooge isn't Good, not how he's Evil.

[ericgrau]

By RAW legally yes:


Law Enforcement

The other key distinctions between adventuring in a city and delving into a dungeon is that a dungeon is, almost by definition, a lawless place where the only law is that of the jungle: Kill or be killed. A city, on the other hand, is held together by a code of laws, many of which are explicitly designed to prevent the sort of behavior that adventurers engage in all the time: killing and looting. Even so, most cities’ laws recognize monsters as a threat to the stability the city relies on, and prohibitions about murder rarely apply to monsters such as aberrations or evil outsiders. Most evil humanoids, however, are typically protected by the same laws that protect all the citizens of the city. Having an evil alignment is not a crime (except in some severely theocratic cities, perhaps, with the magical power to back up the law); only evil deeds are against the law. Even when adventurers encounter an evildoer in the act of perpetrating some heinous evil upon the populace of the city, the law tends to frown on the sort of vigilante justice that leaves the evildoer dead or otherwise unable to testify at a trial.

Also murder is murder. If you kill someone and it's not to save yourself or others, you murdered. Even if the person is terrible, ideally you capture not kill that person if possible. Or else you are engaging in vigilante justice and are deciding more than what one person should decide. Plus here's the RAW for evil:


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
You might be killing a murderer and saving lives, which could be ok if you can't bring that person (or monster) to justice in less lethal ways. But someone who hurts or oppresses others could also be evil. And so killing someone who pinged on a detect evil spell could be committing a greater evil than the one you are eliminating.

OTOH if you kill someone for a good reason such as saving lives or self defense, then it is not murder. This is practically an adventurer's entire business. But at the same time capture and surrender are heavily underused in most campaigns, and realistically they should come into play whenever practical. Unless all foes are 1-dimensional pure evil stereotypes, adventurers who kill recklessly may quickly become a bigger problem to than the ones they kill.

[Razanir]

Is killing a non-hostile evil character considered evil?
Is betraying an evil person considered evil if they were not going to betray you?

It depends. There are a few different types of ethics. If your game follows consequentialism, it means the outcome of an action is what's important, not the action itself. In that case, they wouldn't be Evil. But if your game follows deontological ethics, it's the action that is moral or immoral, regardless of the outcome. In that case, both actions would be Evil.

Finally, there's a middle ground called virtue ethics. The simple version is that morality is determined on a case-by-case basis. Speaking from my real-world LG morality, killing a non-hostile character is Evil, contrasting with if they were hostile or if it was unintentional. Betraying them would probably also be Evil, because they're your ally, regardless of their morality. (Think of it this way: Would it be Evil for the OotS to turn on Belkar?)


Do you think a good cleric would need to atone for this betrayal?

Only if you don't choose to base your game's ethics on consequentialism. And for what it's worth, the SRD seems to learn toward virtue ethics.


Do you think this would cause an alignment shift?

No.

[Hecuba]

A paladin who tries to do the same thing is going to have serious issues and have to explain his moral justification with a 1000 page dissertation on the subject.

Paladins aren't just Good. They're not just Lawful Good. They fall for a single evil action even if they remain Lawful Good.

By the same token, a Paladin of Slaughter falls for a single good act- even if they remain unrelenting evil.

[AzraelX]

An evil act is an evil act, regardless to what end or whom it is used against, so the question needs rephrased for the answer.
Is killing someone an evil act?

Again, an evil act is an evil act, regardless to what end or whom it is used against, so the question needs rephrased for the answer.
Is betrayal, in of itself, an evil act?
I have to disagree with the "regardless to what end" part. Circumstance and intention not only matter, but are usually the defining factors in exactly where something lands on both alignment axes.

As presented: You have an evil character who helps the party out, with no thoughts of betraying them. Every interaction he has with them is completely sincere; let's say he even becomes obsessed with helping them, making his presence hugely beneficial to them.

Is betraying and killing him evil?

That depends completely on the specific circumstances. Why are they killing him? Character motivation is extremely telling when it comes to alignment. The exact same action can be Good for one character and Evil for another (or even Good and Evil for the same character performing them), simply because of a difference in circumstance/intention.


So you ask yourself, "Why are they killing him?"

If the answer is...

"Because he pings as evil!"
- That's an Evil act.

"Because he heinously wronged me in the past and I'm settling the score!"
- That's a Neutral act.

"Because it'll save the lives of stop him from killing innocent people!"
- That's a Good act.
[Whew, barely avoided a slightly more ambiguous Neutral/Good lesser-of-evils scenario.]

Evil: Unwarranted/no defensible motivations/undeserved.
Neutral: Self-interested/personal motivations/deserved.
Good: Justified/selfless motivations/necessary.

Of course, there's more variety than that, but you get the gist :smalltongue:


And as someone mentioned earlier, the act of betrayal takes the law/chaos axis into account.

Consider this sentence: "We each gave our word, and he upheld his end of the deal."

If the next sentence is...

"Therefore, we must uphold our end as well."
- That's a Lawful act.

"He did help me out, so I'm inclined to help him; unless I have stronger motivations in play."
- That's a Neutral act.

"That's great, but I'm under no obligation to do the same. My motivations are all that matter."
- That's a Chaotic act.

You'll also need to consider the legality of executing the culprit, since this is factored into the alignment of the killing act itself.

A Lawful character would be inclined to turn the enemy over to authorities (or follow whatever official procedure is expected); if the culprit's execution at the hands of the authorities is a foregone conclusion, and other non-Lawful party members wanted to expedite the process, and the trip to the authorities would be a significant inconvenience, most Lawful characters wouldn't push the issue, but the most you should expect from them is to look the other way; not because what you're doing is Evil, but because it's not Lawful (particularly zealous defenders of Law are another story; this scenario can play out similarly for both Good and Evil parties).

A Neutral character would judge the situation by practicality and convenience. They factor the authorities into their assessment, but it's only one factor considered of many, so it's not especially important. Although, being Neutral, they may still lean towards Law or Chaos, so this ends up depending even more on the individual.

A Chaotic character would be inclined to handle the matter themselves. They would almost certainly not want to inconvenience themselves to uphold official procedures when the outcome is functionally equivalent (if there's a huge bounty on the enemy, then it's no longer functionally equivalent :smalltongue:). If the enemy's "crimes" are severe enough for execution ("crimes" as judged by the Chaotic character, not according to authorities or the legal system), then the Chaotic character would prefer to handle the execution themselves (this is why "coup de grace" exists). Note the phrasing: "severe enough for execution ... as judged by the Chaotic character"; not all Chaotic characters will agree on when/if someone needs to die. It doesn't matter if the authorities would execute the enemy; if the Chaotic character decides to kill them, it'll be based on things like the enemy's past sins and the future threat they pose. Similarly, even if the enemy is the country's most wanted villain and the authorities would kill them on the spot, a Chaotic character may simply let them go, or even try to assist them (really depends on the particular Chaotic character and enemy in question).


Hopefully that'll help you map out the alignment of their actions on each axis. Someone else also mentioned this, but betrayal is law/chaotic: it's what they do during the betrayal that would determine the good/evil alignment of the actions. A Chaotic Good character is perfectly capable of betraying Lawful Good at every opportunity, and Lawful Evil characters are some of the most honest, to the point they'd cut off their own head if they agreed to it beforehand.

Just remember that, while there may be 9 different alignments, there are almost infinite unique personalities and ideals and motivations which fit into them. Alignments are only the broadest stroke of a character's identity, and each person and action should be judged on a sensible and consistent case-by-case basis.

[hamishspence]

I have never said 99% of humans are Neutral.

You didn't - but at least one other person in this thread did:


The more and more I read this (and other morality threads), the more I think that 99% of the population would ping as Neutral. People do good and bad things. Most are just trying to get by in life trying to help their 'family' as best they can. Generally, they follow the law, but most don't go out of their way to harm others.

[Xuldarinar]

I have to disagree with the "regardless to what end" part. Circumstance and intention not only matter, but are usually the defining factors in exactly where something lands on both alignment axes.
-snip-

I agree, and disagree, and I'll tell you why.

In this (supposedly) real world, circumstance is everything. Your rational is sound, however;

Given that my take on the good alignment within this fictional system is drawn from the BoED, and that other alignments from varying sources, I must disagree.

If I may quote this, and encourage others to read the section discussing ends and means in BoED if they have access:


Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe?A world-shattering catastrophe?
In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve.


It does later state that killing in of itself isn't necessarily an evil act, per say, but on that act alone do circumstances (in method, motive, and victim) rule the day, and the default is evil. There are qualifications to making it non-evil.

[AzraelX]

Good thing that it's a completely optional book, and that Good and Exalted Good aren't remotely equivalent. I can provide links to articles, threads, and other breakdowns which demonstrate the flaws with Exalted Good, and the BoED in general, if desired.

[Xuldarinar]

Good thing that it's a completely optional book, and that Good and Exalted Good aren't remotely equivalent. I can provide links to articles, threads, and other breakdowns which demonstrate the flaws with Exalted Good, and the BoED in general, if desired.

Can you show me anything official that contradicts how the good alignment is presented in BoED? If so, I'd actually genuinely love to see it and how it presents things.

[AzraelX]

Can you show me anything official that contradicts how the good alignment is presented in BoED?
Well sure. I could even just use the BoED, since it contradicts itself in numerous places. However, contradictions aren't really necessary to demonstrate that the BoED isn't presenting "the good alignment", since it constantly specifies itself that it's describing the behavior of "exalted heroes".

I don't really want to try digging out the book right now, but I'm pretty sure there's a whole paragraph at the beginning of the Exalted Deeds list (and most other lists) that specifies the list is for exalted heroes, who good characters can look up to as the perfect ideal, etc. There's also an introduction section explaining the difference between "good" and "exalted", and that any good character can earn the bonuses of an exalted character by holding themselves to the higher standard. It's also in/around this introduction where it makes it clear that being exalted is an optional choice for players who really want to be the ultimate paragons of Ultimate Good instead of possibly being mistaken for neutral characters.

There's even a section for "Exalted Paladins" where it says itself that the phrase is redundant; ie, being "exalted" is equivalent to following a Paladin's code of conduct (which stresses lawfulness and honor as much as goodness).

Those are some examples off the top of my head, but the whole book is filled with (and based around) the fact that Exalted Good is not remotely equivalent to Good. The book is optional supplementary content designed to give you some extra stuff if you want to play your Rogue like a Paladin.

Well I mean, if you want to be technical, the book is optional supplementary content just designed to be the bizarro twin of BoVD, which it copied the content of almost identically, except it just used an antonym for every word to come up with the exact opposite meanings. And it didn't even do a good job, at that. Rename all the poisons from BoVD and then change "poison" to something else: there's a whole section right there.

But that's neither here nor there. All that really matters is that this is explicitly optional content, which makes it a rules variant, not errata clarifying the existing system.

[hamishspence]

Problem is - there's such a thing as Exalted Chaotic Good - characters with an Exalted feat and the Chaotic Good alignment.

And there's plenty of references to things that "characters who are serious about their Good alignment cannot do" - torture being one.

Or that "Even if slavery, discrimination, and torture may be tolerated by medieval (or some D&D) societies, they remain Evil".

BoVD might be "optional" - but it was the baseline used for the Living Greyhawk campaign setting. The FAQ for the setting, on the WOTC site, referred to BoVD as "the authoritative source on Evil deeds" when asked "Is casting [Evil] spells an Evil act".

Q: Is casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor an evil act? If so, can I cast these spells?

A: The Players Handbook is unclear on this issue, and it has led to much debate. Fortunately, the Book of Vile Darkness, the authoritative source on evil deeds, provides insight into this topic. Page 8 of this source lists casting evil spells as an evil act while page 77 indicates that spells with the evil descriptor are evil spells. While the Book of Vile Darkness is not an a player resource in the Living Greyhawk campaign, these statements provide a fairly definitive statement that casting spells with the evil descriptor is an evil act.

That said, the Book of Vile Darkness goes on to say “sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads quickly to corruption and destruction.” Player characters cannot have an evil alignment in the Living Greyhawk campaign, but occasional evil acts are not forbidden. Your PC can cast an [Evil] spell without necessarily becoming evil; however, we urge casters of evil spells not to cross over into true corruption, or one day you will be turned over to your Triad, and on that day you may become an NPC.


Similar principles apply to BoED on "what is a Good act" and "how to avoid committing an Evil act".

[Segev]

I have the fact that he's Evil. It's not a good reason, but it IS a reason, and it is enough of a reason for a Paladin to not Fall--assuming the Paladin in question is the highest authority in the given locale.

(...)

If he is Evil but not active, then he did something in the past that he needs to be brought to justice for. If he is Evil and active, then you defend the innocent. Either way, it works.Actually, you, yourself, came up with precisely a reason why this could be an evil act.

Let's say Joe Bartender was a paragon of LG bartenderhood up until last night. He was jovial and kind, helped people out within his means, ran a tight ship of an establishment, and worked out reasonable ways for those who went long on their tabs to pay them. He would, to Detect Law and Detect Good, have pinged as a strongly-aligned but low-HD Commoner.

Last night, Dastardly McPaladinfall charmed Joe when Joe was out shopping in the marketplace, and convinced him it would be cool to try on this nifty helm. Which happened to be a Helm of Opposite Alignment. Joe, being a commoner, failed his save.

Today, Joe hasn't yet done anything, and is his smiling and jovial self while he takes stock of all the ways he could exploit his good name. He's still got his original, careful personality; his Chaotic alignment is manifesting in a willingness to throw all convention to the curb rather than in a lack of impulse control. His Evil alignment is reflecting itself in how he's now plotting how any act of kindness could profit him, and how much he'll enjoy hurting those who offend him now that he's not acting like a weak milquetoast anymore.

Your Paladin, Sir Smitesalot, walks in for breakfast, having been riding all night on an important quest he only just now completed at the local constabulary. He uses detect evil on Joe, as he does on all bartenders, as he knows some are devious murdering scumbags. Sir Smitesalot, as a Knight of the Crown, is the highest legal authority in this small town, even over the local constabulary.

Lo and behold, he detects a strongly EVIL man of low HD standing there. By your lights, he is 100% within his rights and responsibilities to kill Joe on the spot, despite Joe having done nothing. In fact, if Sir Smitesalot were to be striving to be a paragon of heroic goodness and justice, and knew the whole story, he'd know that Joe is a VICTIM of evil, and deserving of a chance at redemption.

But, because he feels he has no need to check anything beyond "does he ping?" Sir Smitesalot kills an innocent man who has never done anything even slightly evil for which he hasn't atoned, and who hasn't even yet concocted his first specific act of evil as he's still examining his new situation. You can't even say it's "really" Dastardly who killed Joe: Sir Smitesalot had plenty of options other than "smite first, ask questions latet;" he could easily have ensured Joe performed no harmful acts against innocents while he investigated.

This isn't merely a chaotic act, it is evil. He lives in a LN kingdom where the Knights of the Crown are expressly troubleshooters who can ignore red tape as a failsafe against bureaucratic paralysis in situations deemed by the Knights to be cut-and-dried. As Sir Smitesalot "knows" that you have to ahve performed sufficient evil to deserve death in order to ping on detect evil, he feels this cut-and-dried.


Ebenezer Scrooge wasn't Evil. He does nothing overtly Evil whatsoever in the original A Christmas Carol. At worst, he talks down to people -- which, granted, he does do quite a lot. But the worst of his actions are focused entirely on his greed and his selfishness; how he refuses to give to charity, how he won't have dinner with his nephew, how he complains about having to pay full wages for Christmas Day to his clerk even though the man has the day off...

He is not particularly cruel except in the manner in which he dismisses people. But yes, he was absolutely a miser. That is not Evil.

The entire story is focused on how Scrooge isn't Good, not how he's Evil.Honestly? I agree with you, in the original. Most modern portrayals, however, go out of their way to depict him not merely as LN with selfish tendencies, but as actively cruel and enjoying the suffering he is able to legally inflict. Consider it a Flanderization if you like, but it was those representations to which I was referring.

[AzraelX]

Problem is - there's such a thing as Exalted Chaotic Good - characters with an Exalted feat and the Chaotic Good alignment.
Yeah, the book is terribly inconsistent. Everyone should know that already.


characters who are serious about their Good alignment
Serious enough to be considered Exalted.


a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose.
So even according to optional supplementary material, even something explicitly labeled "Evil" can still be done by Good players, depending on their motivations. Got it.

It sounds like we're on the same page.

[hamishspence]

"Nonevil" includes Neutral characters.

To quote Champions of Ruin, after listing BoVD's list of Evil acts:

"Many of these will be present in a nonevil campaign, and even Good characters can be driven to them, from time to time. But the repeated, deliberate use of many of these is the mark of an Evil character".

A LG or LN character (maybe a wizard) who casts 9 [Evil] spells, and does not atone for any of them, will go to Baator after they die, according to Fiendish Codex 2 - "the good that mortals do in life is outweighed by the taint of sin".

Heroes of Horror does suggest that "antiheroes" whose Evil deeds are always done with good intentions, might be able to be Neutral though.

But at least one BoVD deed "only the foulest could be willing to do" - harming or destroying a soul.

So, in a country that adds "soul-destruction" to the death penalty - the executioners (maybe destroying the soul by pushing the victim into a captured Sphere of Annihilation - Complete Divine specifically states it destroys souls) - are going to be Evil-aligned, as will the judges.

[Taelas]

Actually, you, yourself, came up with precisely a reason why this could be an evil act.

Let's say Joe Bartender was a paragon of LG bartenderhood up until last night. He was jovial and kind, helped people out within his means, ran a tight ship of an establishment, and worked out reasonable ways for those who went long on their tabs to pay them. He would, to Detect Law and Detect Good, have pinged as a strongly-aligned but low-HD Commoner.

Last night, Dastardly McPaladinfall charmed Joe when Joe was out shopping in the marketplace, and convinced him it would be cool to try on this nifty helm. Which happened to be a Helm of Opposite Alignment. Joe, being a commoner, failed his save.

Today, Joe hasn't yet done anything, and is his smiling and jovial self while he takes stock of all the ways he could exploit his good name. He's still got his original, careful personality; his Chaotic alignment is manifesting in a willingness to throw all convention to the curb rather than in a lack of impulse control. His Evil alignment is reflecting itself in how he's now plotting how any act of kindness could profit him, and how much he'll enjoy hurting those who offend him now that he's not acting like a weak milquetoast anymore.

Your Paladin, Sir Smitesalot, walks in for breakfast, having been riding all night on an important quest he only just now completed at the local constabulary. He uses detect evil on Joe, as he does on all bartenders, as he knows some are devious murdering scumbags. Sir Smitesalot, as a Knight of the Crown, is the highest legal authority in this small town, even over the local constabulary.

Lo and behold, he detects a strongly EVIL man of low HD standing there. By your lights, he is 100% within his rights and responsibilities to kill Joe on the spot, despite Joe having done nothing. In fact, if Sir Smitesalot were to be striving to be a paragon of heroic goodness and justice, and knew the whole story, he'd know that Joe is a VICTIM of evil, and deserving of a chance at redemption.

But, because he feels he has no need to check anything beyond "does he ping?" Sir Smitesalot kills an innocent man who has never done anything even slightly evil for which he hasn't atoned, and who hasn't even yet concocted his first specific act of evil as he's still examining his new situation. You can't even say it's "really" Dastardly who killed Joe: Sir Smitesalot had plenty of options other than "smite first, ask questions latet;" he could easily have ensured Joe performed no harmful acts against innocents while he investigated.

This isn't merely a chaotic act, it is evil. He lives in a LN kingdom where the Knights of the Crown are expressly troubleshooters who can ignore red tape as a failsafe against bureaucratic paralysis in situations deemed by the Knights to be cut-and-dried. As Sir Smitesalot "knows" that you have to ahve performed sufficient evil to deserve death in order to ping on detect evil, he feels this cut-and-dried.
It is not an Evil act. Sorry. Yes, it is entirely unfair to Joe, but however he became such, he was Evil. He would have wanted to do Evil acts. He definitely deserved redemption, and it is a horrible "solution" to just kill him, but it is a solution, and as long as Sir Smitesalot has the defense of innocents in mind, then he is not penalized for stopping Joe from hurting innocents.

If your motivation is to stop someone from doing Evil, then it doesn't matter how many Evil acts he has committed previously. It is not merely an assumption: he actively feels the man's Evil disposition.


Honestly? I agree with you, in the original. Most modern portrayals, however, go out of their way to depict him not merely as LN with selfish tendencies, but as actively cruel and enjoying the suffering he is able to legally inflict. Consider it a Flanderization if you like, but it was those representations to which I was referring.
It is still a stretch to call him Evil even under those assumptions.

[Segev]

It is not an Evil act. Sorry. Yes, it is entirely unfair to Joe, but however he became such, he was Evil. He would have wanted to do Evil acts. He definitely deserved redemption, and it is a horrible "solution" to just kill him, but it is a solution, and as long as Sir Smitesalot has the defense of innocents in mind, then he is not penalized for stopping Joe from hurting innocents.

If your motivation is to stop someone from doing Evil, then it doesn't matter how many Evil acts he has committed previously. It is not merely an assumption: he actively feels the man's Evil disposition. So your position is that you can and should punish people for things they intend to plan to do, or for things they "will" do, even if you don't know what those are and they don't yet know what those are?



It is still a stretch to call him Evil even under those assumptions.I don't think so. Since your Paladin could kill hundreds of innocent people just because they "will" do horrible, evil things that neither they nor he are able to identify, killing him would save hundreds of innocent lives and not necessarily condemn none. So, by your definition of when it is a good act to kill somebody for what he "will" do, rather than what he's actually done, it's a good act to kill your paladin. Since it isn't a good act to kill good and neutral people, your paladin must be evil.



To look at it another way, let's say Joe was CG to start with (bending and breaking rules to help people out, always with the best of intentions and even with a wink and a nod from the NG costabulary when they found their LG laws a little too constraining and forcing them to be less helpful to the innocent than they'd like). He's been whammied into being LE.

He detects the same in this scenario as before. However, in this scenario, he's not brilliant at finding loopholes in the law; he's used to just ignoring them when inconvenient. He sees, now, that that was a foolish act because it made him vulnerable to punishment if anybody had bothered to try. Now, he'd DEARLY love to commit horrific acts of cruelty and malice to profit himself...but he can't see any that are legal. He'll never actually DO any of the evil, cruel things he thinks might be cathartic or profitable because he might get caught, and he is Lawful because he knows how valuable being technically within the law really is. He lives in this LG thorpe of this LN nation, so the laws here are pretty much ironclad against doing more than incidentally greedy evils. He's never going to have the chance, here under the laws he obeys, to do any murder-level evil.

So now Sir Smitesalot doesn't even have the fig leaf that poor Joe now is a time bomb waiting to kill hundreds of other innocents. Thanks to his Lawful nature, he'll probably eventually drift to LN simply by inaction on the Evil side of things and too many neutral acts and a few mildly good ones (done grudgingly) compelled by the law.

But Sir Smitesalot kills him for what he MIGHT do, now, if he ever finds himself free of these laws in this land. Not what he WILL, but what he MIGHT.

Still an evil act; more blatantly so than before, having removed the fig leaf of "but he WOULD have done evil had I not killed him."

[hamishspence]

"Respect for life" doesn't just apply to Good and Neutral characters - it applies to Evil ones as well, after all.

And "innocent" can simply mean "not guilty". Thus, Joe is innocent until he's shown to be trying to commit a moral crime.

And even then, what's appropriate to stop a "would-be bully" is very different from "what's appropriate to stop a would-be murderer".

[Yukitsu]

So your position is that you can and should punish people for things they intend to plan to do, or for things they "will" do, even if you don't know what those are and they don't yet know what those are?

As a general aside, there's generally consensus that magic alignment shifts and other planar weirdness is an exception to any sort of general concept of morality. The helm of opposite alignment is a pretty good example. What if you put one on and just continue playing exactly as lawful good until your alignment should change back? Evidently you can't, or if you can, the item literally does nothing, your previous good deeds and lack of evil would cause your alignment to shift right back. It's a case similar to someone with no free will acting as a puppet of evil, it's a magical case where the question isn't morals, but the rules the magic should follow which aren't exactly clear.


I don't think so. Since your Paladin could kill hundreds of innocent people just because they "will" do horrible, evil things that neither they nor he are able to identify, killing him would save hundreds of innocent lives and not necessarily condemn none. So, by your definition of when it is a good act to kill somebody for what he "will" do, rather than what he's actually done, it's a good act to kill your paladin. Since it isn't a good act to kill good and neutral people, your paladin must be evil.

He was saying even modern redoes of Scrooge aren't evil there, so the remainder of your text on this line of thinking isn't terribly relevant.

[Nifft]

Honestly? I agree with you, in the original. Most modern portrayals, however, go out of their way to depict him not merely as LN with selfish tendencies, but as actively cruel and enjoying the suffering he is able to legally inflict. Consider it a Flanderization if you like, but it was those representations to which I was referring.

It's my opinion that Scrooge was borderline Evil, but it was an ascetic sort of Evil which caused him to mistreat himself as well as others. He didn't really enjoy suffering, but he felt it was righteous for himself (and others) to suffer. He expressed this through miserliness.

He only asked others to tolerate conditions which he imposed upon himself -- and that was enough to stray from the path of Good, because he was mistreating himself.


It is not an Evil act. Sorry. Yes, it is entirely unfair to Joe, but however he became such, he was Evil. He would have wanted to do Evil acts. He definitely deserved redemption, and it is a horrible "solution" to just kill him, but it is a solution, and as long as Sir Smitesalot has the defense of innocents in mind, then he is not penalized for stopping Joe from hurting innocents.

If your motivation is to stop someone from doing Evil, then it doesn't matter how many Evil acts he has committed previously. It is not merely an assumption: he actively feels the man's Evil disposition.

This means that the forces of Evil will be mass-producing Helms of Opposite Alignment and forcing them on all the paragons of Goodness, because obviously what Good people do is murder their former colleagues when the colleague pings as Evil.

The upside is: your campaign setting won't be poorly thought out for very long, because it'll implode with swiftness and vigor.

[Segev]

As a general aside, there's generally consensus that magic alignment shifts and other planar weirdness is an exception to any sort of general concept of morality. The helm of opposite alignment is a pretty good example. What if you put one on and just continue playing exactly as lawful good until your alignment should change back? Evidently you can't, or if you can, the item literally does nothing, your previous good deeds and lack of evil would cause your alignment to shift right back. It's a case similar to someone with no free will acting as a puppet of evil, it's a magical case where the question isn't morals, but the rules the magic should follow which aren't exactly clear.That is, honestly, a separate question; I took pains in my example to provide in-alignment reasons why the now-LE guy wouldn't be commiting acts of overt evil that actively hurt anybody.

It doesn't even matter whether this is an exception to a general concept of morality. It is a situation which can arise in game, and one wherein Sir Smitesalot would invariably kill Joe the Bartender. Even though Joe has not and probably will not do anything to live down to what he pings as.




He was saying even modern redoes of Scrooge aren't evil there, so the remainder of your text on this line of thinking isn't terribly relevant.I'm not entirely sure how that follows from what you quoted.

[Yukitsu]

That is, honestly, a separate question; I took pains in my example to provide in-alignment reasons why the now-LE guy wouldn't be commiting acts of overt evil that actively hurt anybody.

It doesn't even matter whether this is an exception to a general concept of morality. It is a situation which can arise in game, and one wherein Sir Smitesalot would invariably kill Joe the Bartender. Even though Joe has not and probably will not do anything to live down to what he pings as.

If Joe the Bartender will never do anything evil anyway, then the entire alignment system is enough of a croc that it really doesn't matter a whole lot.


I'm not entirely sure how that follows from what you quoted.

Taelas was talking about Scrooge, the thing I quoted was talking about something which had nothing in context to what Taelas had actually said.

[hamishspence]

It's not the DM's job to predict the future years in advance - a few days may be enough.

If "instinctive solution to NPC problems" is an alignment thing - then a Good character's "instinctive solutions" may be kindness, and an Evil character's "instinctive solutions" may now be bullying - that doesn't mean he's going to encounter problems immediately.

[Yukitsu]

It's not the DM's job to predict the future years in advance - a few days may be enough.

If "instinctive solution to NPC problems" is an alignment thing - then a Good character's "instinctive solutions" may be kindness, and an Evil character's "instinctive solutions" may now be bullying - that doesn't mean he's going to encounter problems immediately.

To what degree is instinct countering free will though? If this now "evil" person feels this instinct to do evil but finds it doesn't mesh with who he thinks he is and doesn't plan on acting on that instinct, he obviously isn't an evil person, and detecting him as such is clearly hogwash. If he has this impulse and can't act otherwise, clearly it's OK to kill him since he has a moral imperative to commit evil that he can't ignore.

I think the latter is clear with the particular instance of the helm. They are horrified by the thought of becoming good, and while under the influence of the helm, cannot do anything which could alter their alignment back.

[hamishspence]

If he has this impulse and can't act otherwise, clearly it's OK to kill him since he has a moral imperative to commit evil that he can't ignore.

Or perhaps:

In fact, if Sir Smitesalot were to be striving to be a paragon of heroic goodness and justice, and knew the whole story, he'd know that Joe is a VICTIM of evil, and deserving of a chance at redemption.

But, because he feels he has no need to check anything beyond "does he ping?" Sir Smitesalot kills an innocent man who has never done anything even slightly evil for which he hasn't atoned, and who hasn't even yet concocted his first specific act of evil as he's still examining his new situation.

Good characters shouldn't really be thinking along the lines of "Who is OK to kill - I'll seek them out and kill them".

They should be thinking along the lines of "Who needs me the most - I'll seek them out and help them however I can".

[Yukitsu]

Good characters shouldn't really be thinking along the lines of "Who is OK to kill - I'll seek them out and kill them".

They should be thinking along the lines of "Who needs me the most - I'll seek them out and help them however I can".

Given that as written, the individual who is now forcibly and gleefully an agent of evil, I'm betting people near him will be pretty much in trouble, so whether or not your motive is fighting evil or helping people being hurt by evil, he's going to be a smite target pretty quickly.

I also generally disagree with what good should be doing in as written D&D for most of the game. It's a game with extensive combat rules with a lot of good vs. evil written directly into it with a class which has way better smash evil built into it rather than features to help get a cat out of a tree or help construct orphanages. And one is certainly more interesting than the other. I think at some point, moral opinion has to take a back seat to it being a game that is theoretically supposed to be fun.

And looking at what a paladin actually is, it should be relatively clear that they should be the one going around smiting people. They're an obvious warrior type of class, there are plenty of agents of good that can help one another but who cannot actively fight evil with plenty of evil in your typical setting that should be eliminated by something. It makes a lot less sense for that paladin to be looking for people to help while letting the guy with the forced evil alignment run around being fully evil when there are tons of other people who are also helping people who can't fight evil.

[hamishspence]

The Luke Skywalker approach works - find people in trouble - put yourself between them and the trouble, and fiercely defend yourself.

[Yukitsu]

The Luke Skywalker approach works - find people in trouble - put yourself between them and the trouble, and fiercely defend yourself.

Then you should house rule that paladins have a detect trouble spell effect rather than a detect evil effect. Or simply use a load of deus ex machina since Luke rarely actually goes anywhere to try and defend anyone. As they are, they're about the worst individuals in the game to find people who are in trouble, but one of the better ones to find evil.

[hamishspence]

I was thinking more of the way he's described in the EU.

I see Detect Evil as a way of identifying those who Smite will work on - but not as a way of "identifying who, in a town, you should start killing". Mostly thanks to all those D&D books that say that doing this would be a huge mistake.

[illyahr]

And looking at what a paladin actually is, it should be relatively clear that they should be the one going around smiting people. They're an obvious warrior type of class, there are plenty of agents of good that can help one another but who cannot actively fight evil with plenty of evil in your typical setting that should be eliminated by something. It makes a lot less sense for that paladin to be looking for people to help while letting the guy with the forced evil alignment run around being fully evil when there are tons of other people who are also helping people who can't fight evil.

The Paladin is generally regarded as very poorly written and requires a lot of assistance in doing what it was supposed to do. There are dozens of PrC's that help redefine what a paladin should do and they run the gamut from "Smite all that is Evil" to "Defend the Faith from all who Oppose" to "Travel to Cleanse the Sick and Downtrodden."

However, if you find the "Smite all that is Evil" style of paladin to be the most fun, more power to ya. :smallsmile:

[Yukitsu]

The Paladin is generally regarded as very poorly written and requires a lot of assistance in doing what it was supposed to do. There are dozens of PrC's that help redefine what a paladin should do and they run the gamut from "Smite all that is Evil" to "Defend the Faith from all who Oppose" to "Travel to Cleanse the Sick and Downtrodden."

However, if you find the "Smite all that is Evil" style of paladin to be the most fun, more power to ya. :smallsmile:

Sometimes I do, sometimes I play more diplomatic ones. My point is that unless you're trying to run a morally complex game (which standard D&D isn't made for) then you'll want to let your players run around smiting things that ping as evil, wipe out random groups of goblins or whatever else without their paladin falling. If that's what they're doing it should be pretty obvious that a smite all evil sort of experience is the kind they want, it's written into a lot of the expectations of the game itself and you wouldn't be penalizing a player for doing this sort of thing with any other class.

Alignment should be used if it can expand the general gameplay experience. Making it into shackles that dictate only one specific path forward riddled with bull**** alignment traps is not a fun game experience.

[hamishspence]

Sometimes I do, sometimes I play more diplomatic ones. My point is that unless you're trying to run a morally complex game (which standard D&D isn't made for) then you'll want to let your players run around smiting things that ping as evil, wipe out random groups of goblins or whatever else without their paladin falling.

I think 3rd ed chucked a lot of that out of the window when it made everything evil-aligned (rather than the extremely malevolent, magical, high level, etc, of older editions) ping, and introduced "usually" and "often" to monsters that were previously much more homogenous.

The moral complexity was there in older editions - but 3rd ed has tended to increase it, even before splatbooks.

[Taelas]

So your position is that you can and should punish people for things they intend to plan to do, or for things they "will" do, even if you don't know what those are and they don't yet know what those are?
My position is that doing so is not necessarily inconsistent with a Good alignment. It's just an extreme way to play Good -- no tolerance for Evil. Because it is so extreme, it is easy to Fall for a Paladin.


I don't think so. Since your Paladin could kill hundreds of innocent people just because they "will" do horrible, evil things that neither they nor he are able to identify, killing him would save hundreds of innocent lives and not necessarily condemn none. So, by your definition of when it is a good act to kill somebody for what he "will" do, rather than what he's actually done, it's a good act to kill your paladin. Since it isn't a good act to kill good and neutral people, your paladin must be evil.
... not sure what this has to do with not thinking Scrooge is Evil even in "modern" representations, which is what you were quoting, but OK...

The Paladin cannot kill innocent people. Joe isn't innocent anymore; he has been magically induced to be Evil -- he has been corrupted. He is now a card-carrying member of the Villain Club. He WILL commit Evil acts, because that is now his alignment. His entire moral reasoning has been inverted. He essentially has no freedom to choose not to be Evil (even though he still possesses free will), because the way he thinks is now that Evil is the "right" way to be.


To look at it another way, let's say Joe was CG to start with (bending and breaking rules to help people out, always with the best of intentions and even with a wink and a nod from the NG costabulary when they found their LG laws a little too constraining and forcing them to be less helpful to the innocent than they'd like). He's been whammied into being LE.

He detects the same in this scenario as before. However, in this scenario, he's not brilliant at finding loopholes in the law; he's used to just ignoring them when inconvenient. He sees, now, that that was a foolish act because it made him vulnerable to punishment if anybody had bothered to try. Now, he'd DEARLY love to commit horrific acts of cruelty and malice to profit himself...but he can't see any that are legal. He'll never actually DO any of the evil, cruel things he thinks might be cathartic or profitable because he might get caught, and he is Lawful because he knows how valuable being technically within the law really is. He lives in this LG thorpe of this LN nation, so the laws here are pretty much ironclad against doing more than incidentally greedy evils. He's never going to have the chance, here under the laws he obeys, to do any murder-level evil.
Sorry, but that is not possible. He will either flee from the LG society that is the antithesis of his entire way of being, or he will find a way to subvert it. He will not continue to act in a Good or even Neutral manner.


So now Sir Smitesalot doesn't even have the fig leaf that poor Joe now is a time bomb waiting to kill hundreds of other innocents. Thanks to his Lawful nature, he'll probably eventually drift to LN simply by inaction on the Evil side of things and too many neutral acts and a few mildly good ones (done grudgingly) compelled by the law.
That is not how a helm of opposite alignment functions. He will be compelled by his own nature to commit Evil acts. Period.


But Sir Smitesalot kills him for what he MIGHT do, now, if he ever finds himself free of these laws in this land. Not what he WILL, but what he MIGHT.

Still an evil act; more blatantly so than before, having removed the fig leaf of "but he WOULD have done evil had I not killed him."
Sir Smitesalot never kills him for what he MIGHT do. That's just not how the system works. Either he kills him for something he has done (if he has committed Evil in the past), or because of something he WILL do (because he is Evil, so he will do things that are consistent with his moral outlook).


This means that the forces of Evil will be mass-producing Helms of Opposite Alignment and forcing them on all the paragons of Goodness, because obviously what Good people do is murder their former colleagues when the colleague pings as Evil.
I am not saying that Good people should kill anyone forcibly turned Evil. I am saying it is exactly the same as killing any other Evil person.

As an aside, why would that only happen if the forces of Good murdered them? It's a very tactically sound idea to convert the opposition -- for both sides, even. I don't think it would be a very interesting game, though.

[hamishspence]

He will either flee from the LG society that is the antithesis of his entire way of being, or he will find a way to subvert it.

He's never going to have the chance, here under the laws he obeys, to do any murder-level evil.
The idea is that he will try to subvert it as a commoner would - low-level, minor evils that he knows he has a good chance of not getting caught for.


Either he kills him for something he has done (if he has committed Evil in the past), or because of something he WILL do (because he is Evil, so he will do things that are consistent with his moral outlook).
Thing is, not every Evil act is "kill-worthy".

A paladin must "punish those that harm or threaten innocents" - but depending on the degree of harm, killing may be an excessive response.

[Taelas]

The idea is that he will try to subvert it as a commoner would - low-level, minor evils that he knows he has a good chance of not getting caught for.
And as I have stated repeatedly, those people are not Evil. He will not limit himself to those acts; it is not consistent with his alignment. Since his alignment was forced on him, his opinions were as well; he will not see those acts as being enough for his tastes.


Thing is, not every Evil act is "kill-worthy".

A paladin must "punish those that harm or threaten innocents" - but depending on the degree of harm, killing may be an excessive response.
Not every Evil act is kill-worthy, no. But if you are Evil, then either you have committed acts that are (or are now immediately willing to, in the case of a helm of opposite alignment), or the amount of "non-kill-worthy" Evil acts you have committed is enough on its own to make you kill-worthy.

[hamishspence]

And as I have stated repeatedly, those people are not Evil.

Depends on the edition, and on the campaign setting. I could certainly see Eberron and Faerun paladins Falling for smiting Evil bartenders "for having an Evil alignment" - and maybe even Greyhawk ones.

[Nifft]

I was thinking more of the way he's described in the EU.

I see Detect Evil as a way of identifying those who Smite will work on - but not as a way of "identifying who, in a town, you should start killing". Mostly thanks to all those D&D books that say that doing this would be a huge mistake.

I think this is exactly correct.

In my games, a Paladin who used her detect evil as Smite-O-Vision would (eventually) become Fallen.

[Taelas]

They do not smite them "for having an Evil alignment", though it is close. They smite them for being willing to do (or for already having done) Evil acts. It is a difference of degrees. When a Paladin starts smiting people not because of what they do (or are willing to do), but because of what they are -- that's when they step over the line.

It's just that when it comes to alignment, the difference is essentially nonexistent. What they are is what they do. An Evil person that is not willing to do Evil acts is a contradiction in terms. They do not exist.

The closest you get is an Evil person that decides to seek out redemption. But even then, the Paladin is not obligated to grant their desire.

I wouldn't cause them to Fall, unless they were in a position to know the quest for redemption is genuine with the same certainty that they can determine the person's alignment. I just don't see that happening (unless the Paladin can read minds or something of that nature).

Even then, though, I'm not even sure I would enforce a Fall.

[hamishspence]

I think this is exactly correct.

In my games, a Paladin who used her detect evil as Smite-O-Vision would (eventually) become Fallen.

Or, as Heroes of Horror puts it when discussing using alignment as written, while keeping tension and mystery:


So what if the PCs can detect alignment? Surely the deranged killer, the foreign assassin, or the cultist of Demogorgon are not the only evil people in town. Can the heroes just go out and start killing? It's highly unlikely that the city watch would take kindly to that. For that matter, alignment-detecting spells probably aren't admissible as evidence of wrongdoing in most D&D-setting societies. After all, being evil doesn't necessarily make someone a lawbreaker (particularly if the character is lawful evil). Combine that with the fact that so many means exist for misdirecting or fooling these spells, and the law has probably written off alignment-detecting spells as circumstantial evidence at most. PCs who assume they can attack the suspected villain openly because he triggered the paladin's sense of evil may well find themselves on the wrong side of a dungeon door.

An Evil person that is not willing to do Evil acts is a contradiction in terms. They do not exist.

You can have an evil character with limits though. Some are only willing to "lie for personal gain". Some are willing to bully, but not to murder. And so forth.

[Nifft]

They do not smite them "for having an Evil alignment", though it is close. They smite them for being willing to do (or for already having done) Evil acts. It is a difference of degrees. When a Paladin starts smiting people not because of what they do (or are willing to do), but because of what they are -- that's when they step over the line.

It's just that when it comes to alignment, the difference is essentially nonexistent. What they are is what they do. An Evil person that is not willing to do Evil acts is a contradiction in terms. They do not exist. That's wrong.

What gets detected is the accumulation of past actions, not a prediction of future results.

If it were true that being any particular alignment meant an inability to perform alignment-opposed actions, then there would be no such thing as fallen Paladins.

Alignment cannot be a perfect prediction of future behavior.

[hamishspence]

What gets detected is the accumulation of past actions, not a prediction of future results.

Except of course in the case of "newborn evil creatures" - a werewolf who has embraced the transformation, a hatchling chromatic dragon, and so forth.

There are many types of Evil character.

[Nifft]

Except of course in the case of "newborn evil creatures" - a werewolf who has embraced the transformation, a hatchling chromatic dragon, and so forth.

There are many types of Evil character. Good point.

Doesn't contradict my main point ("not a prediction of future results"), so I think we basically agree.

[hamishspence]

Yup. Because Evil characters vary so much in what they will and won't do, one can't predict that:

"the character will (if left unharmed) commit an act between now and their death, that most D&D Neutral or Good courts would sentence them to death for."

[Taelas]

That's wrong.

What gets detected is the accumulation of past actions, not a prediction of future results.
In most cases, yes.

In the case specifically of a helm of opposite alignment? No. Nor is it the case when speaking of a chromatic dragon, as they possess their alignment at birth.


If it were true that being any particular alignment meant an inability to perform alignment-opposed actions, then there would be no such thing as fallen Paladins.

Alignment cannot be a perfect prediction of future behavior.

It doesn't mean an inability to perform alignment-opposed actions at all. But what is an alignment? It is a consistent pattern of behavior, in part based on your personal moral outlook -- your motivations -- and in part based on your actions. For a person that has his alignment forcibly changed -- as per the helm of opposite alignment -- then their pattern of behavior is now changed. They view things differently, and they do things differently. They are at least as committed in their new alignment as they were in their former. That means a now-Evil person is equally as unlikely to do Good actions as he formerly was unlikely to do Evil actions -- and conversely, he is equally as likely to do Evil actions as he formerly was to do Good ones.

You cannot perfectly predict actions, but you can predict a general pattern of behavior--after all, that is what alignment is! The Paladin cannot follow the Evil person around and determine, "He's Evil, so he's going to do this now, because that's what an Evil person would do!" The person has free will. He chooses what he does. His choices are simply going to be primarily Evil ones, as is consistent with his alignment.

He's not a robot. He won't do 100% Evil actions, every time. No one is that constant in their actions. We all have bad days and good days. The Evil person might very well start out by trying to do things the way he did before -- that is what I would find the most logical, in fact -- but he suddenly finds those things abhorrent. If a LG fireman became CE through such a change, he might begin setting fires instead of stopping them, because it's suddenly just funny to watch people run around with their hair ablaze.

[Rhyltran]

Yup. Because Evil characters vary so much in what they will and won't do, one can't predict that:

"the character will (if left unharmed) commit an act between now and their death, that most D&D Neutral or Good courts would sentence them to death for."

A lot of people seem to have the mistaken belief that if someone is evil they are irredeemably bad or have done some incomprehensible acts of cruelty. It's not. There can be petty evil. If you've done more "evil" things than "Good" things you're evil. all it requires is for you to have committed more evil acts than neutral/good acts. A bully can be evil. The jerk that abuses his family can be evil. The underground dog fighter can be evil. The man who puts people down and makes everyone's lives miserable can be evil. Many D&D settings and supplements have made it clear that it is possible to be evil and not break any laws. If evil acts are only heinous despicable things this would not be possible. A petty individual who laughs at sick people, kicks dogs, steals bread from homeless children, and whistles while walking away from someone getting the tar beaten out of them is evil.

Evil comes in many shades and not every evil person is villain level. The passage Hamishspence linked is a good reflection of that.

So what if the PCs can detect alignment? Surely the deranged killer, the foreign assassin, or the cultist of Demogorgon are not the only evil people in town.

This implies you can be evil without being these things. For people claiming "This means detect evil is an alignment trap" no it doesn't. I am playing a Paladin in a faerun campaign and not everyone in it is "Kill worthy" just because they have an evil alignment. Detect evil still has been useful. I don't use it to see who or what I can kill but who and what I should be wary of trusting. If my gut suspicions is someone might be bad or lying and I detect evil and it turns up that he is evil it doesn't mean I smite him on the spot. It means my gut is probably right and I should be wary.

[hamishspence]

I am playing a Paladin in a faerun campaign and not everyone in it is "Kill worthy" just because they have an evil alignment.

Champions of Valor even allows for Evil "Valorous" and "Heroic" characters:

"This book is about valorous characters - those who might be good or in some cases merely neutral, but are great and heroic in facing down the greatest dangers of Faerun. Most valorous characters are good, but a significant fraction of them are indifferent to good and evil, and a rare few are evil but realize that some evils must be challenged (even the mad Halaster has battled on Mystra's behalf)."


So my players are going to have to team up with an evil character in the near future if they are going stop a much greater evil. I imagine they are going to work with him to an extent but I'm curious what to do if they kill him, in regards to alignment. The evil character is not going to betray them or fight them in any way so any hostilities would have to be initiated by the party.


The OP's "evil character allied with the party to fight against a greater evil" is - despite being evil - acting with valor, and like a hero.

[Taelas]

A lot of people seem to have the mistaken belief that if someone is evil they are irredeemably bad or have done some incomprehensible acts of cruelty. It's not. There can be petty evil. If you've done more "evil" things than "Good" things you're evil. all it requires is for you to have committed more evil acts than neutral/good acts. A bully can be evil. The jerk that abuses his family can be evil. The underground dog fighter can be evil. The man who puts people down and makes everyone's lives evil can be evil. Many D&D settings and supplements have made it clear that it is possible to be evil and not break any laws. If evil acts are only heinous despicable things this would not be possible. A petty individual who laughs at sick people, kicks dogs, steals bread from homeless children, and whistles while walking away from someone getting the tar beaten out of them is evil.
No, they are someone who does petty Evil things somewhat often.

What do they do when confronted by the opportunity to do far more Evil things? Assuming they restrict themselves to petty Evil, then they must take another road -- most likely the Neutral act of not getting involved.

"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."

Neutral gets ignored far too often, in my opinion.


Evil comes in many shades and not every evil person is villain level. The passage Hamishspence linked is a good reflection of that.

So what if the PCs can detect alignment? Surely the deranged killer, the foreign assassin, or the cultist of Demogorgon are not the only evil people in town.

This implies you can be evil without being these things. For people claiming "This means detect evil is an alignment trap" no it doesn't. I am playing a Paladin in a faerun campaign and not everyone in it is "Kill worthy" just because they have an evil alignment. Detect evil still has been useful. I don't use it to see who or what I can kill but who and what I should be wary of trusting. If my gut suspicions is someone might be bad or lying and I detect evil and it turns up that he is evil it doesn't mean I smite him on the spot. It means my gut is probably right and I should be wary.
You can be Evil "without being [those] things", absolutely. But they will be almost as bad at best, and possibly much worse.

I am not saying that every Paladin should smite everything that pops up on their detect evil. I am saying that someone who does can still be a Paladin. A poor one, but a Paladin nonetheless.


Champions of Valor even allows for Evil "Valorous" and "Heroic" characters:

"This book is about valorous characters - those who might be good or in some cases merely neutral, but are great and heroic in facing down the greatest dangers of Faerun. Most valorous characters are good, but a significant fraction of them are indifferent to good and evil, and a rare few are evil but realize that some evils must be challenged (even the mad Halaster has battled on Mystra's behalf)."
Oh, absolutely. Dr. Doom is an example of a villainous character who often acts as a champion, as is Lex Luthor. Both are definitely Evil, but they frequently act to defend the Earth from various threats, sometimes even partnering up with their rivals to do so.


The OP's "evil character allied with the party to fight against a greater evil" is - despite being evil - acting with valor, and like a hero.
Yes, I quite agree. It may very well be necessary for the party to cooperate with the Evil character in order to fight a greater evil.

Paladins are explicitly forbidden to do this, though. They will not associate with Evil characters.

[Rhyltran]

No, they are someone who does petty Evil things somewhat often.

What do they do when confronted by the opportunity to do far more Evil things? Assuming they restrict themselves to petty Evil, then they must take another road -- most likely the Neutral act of not getting involved.

"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."

Neutral gets ignored far too often, in my opinion.

Neutral doesn't get ignored because in this case the person isn't neutral. What do they do when often exposed to worse things? Not everyone who is evil is a killer. This is more than "Not making sacrifices to protect or help others." the person is still committing evil acts more than he's committing good or neutral acts. They don't need to take another road. If their petty evil acts are happening on a consistent basis and is something they're doing regularly they are evil.

Again, it's a balancing act. If the scale is pretty even or almost even then the person probably falls somewhere on the neutral scale. If the scale is weighing more to one side by a good degree the person is probably evil. If there's enough pebbles that it causes the scale to lean in that direction? The person is probably evil. It doesn't matter that it's only pebbles when the number of pebbles is outweighing everything else. How much good does the person do in their life? How much evil? Does it balance out? The person is probably neutral. Does the person tend to favor the "neutral" route? Keep to themselves? Or just focus on their own self interests and that's it? The person is probably neutral.

In the 3.5 player's handbook it mentions that neutral probably views good as better than evil but a neutral individual doesn't feel personally committed to upholding it one way or another. It specifically describes them as being literally somewhere in the middle. The people I described above are not neutral. They are not in the middle. They are committing evil on a daily basis and actively choosing to harm those around them. The guy I described that laughs at the sick, kick dogs, steal loafs of bread from children, and whistling soundly as someone gets a complete beating is not a good person. He's not even a neutral person. In all honesty when you asked the question I outlined above he probably would commit greater evil in order to save himself. That much is true but at the moment he hasn't and he won't unless pushed to that.

Even if it's in his nature.

[Elbeyon]

tl;dr being good is dumb and prevents you from doing 90% of the things.

Just pick evil. Then you can be as good as much as you want but don't have anyone shoving some idea of what they think is good down your throat. It also works because you can be selectively good to certain people but toss others to the wind. You can kill evil doers as much as you want and not touch anyone else and still be considered evil. Yay double standards!Agreed.

Paladins are beings of pure chaos. What they can and can't do depends on the whims of badly written rules. Evil is good. Good is evil. Chaos is Law. Law is chaos. Evil is Chaos, etc.. etc... None of it makes any sense. A paladin could be a champion of good in one game, but an amoral chaotic bastard in another game. People that don't care about being "perfect" can do the most good. They can do the good everyone needs without the political bickering caused by some idiotic nonsensical alignment system. They can do good greater than any paladin because they can accept minor evils, and focus on the big important picture.

[Taelas]

Neutral doesn't get ignored because in this case the person isn't neutral. What do they do when often exposed to worse things? Not everyone who is evil is a killer. This is more than "Not making sacrifices to protect or help others." the person is still committing evil acts more than he's committing good or neutral acts. They don't need to take another road. If their petty evil acts are happening on a consistent basis and is something they're doing regularly they are evil.
"Not everyone who is evil is a killer." No, but to be Evil, they must have done something that is essentially as bad. That is what Evil means.

You are right here and now ignoring that the rest of the actions this character does are Neutral. Not engaging in major Evil acts? Explicitly Neutral.


Again, it's a balancing act. If the scale is pretty even or almost even then the person probably falls somewhere on the neutral scale. If the scale is weighing more to one side by a good degree the person is probably evil. If there's enough pebbles that it causes the scale to lean in that direction? The person is probably evil. It doesn't matter that it's only pebbles when the number of pebbles is outweighing everything else. How much good does the person do in their life? How much evil? Does it balance out? The person is probably neutral. Does the person tend to favor the "neutral" route? Keep to themselves? Or just focus on their own self interests and that's it? The person is probably neutral.

In the 3.5 player's handbook it mentions that neutral probably views good as better than evil but a neutral individual doesn't feel personally committed to upholding it one way or another. It specifically describes them as being literally somewhere in the middle. The people I described above are not neutral. They are not in the middle. They are committing evil on a daily basis and actively choosing to harm those around them.
They are doing Evil acts. I do not dispute that. What I am saying is that they are not doing enough to balance the scale in the direction you say they are. They cannot be, specifically because they refuse to do the real Evil--and refusing to do that is a Neutral act.

[Rhyltran]

"Not everyone who is evil is a killer." No, but to be Evil, they must have done something that is essentially as bad. That is what Evil means.

You are right here and now ignoring that the rest of the actions this character does are Neutral. Not engaging in major Evil acts? Explicitly Neutral.


They are doing Evil acts. I do not dispute that. What I am saying is that they are not doing enough to balance the scale in the direction you say they are. They cannot be, specifically because they refuse to do the real Evil--and refusing to do that is a Neutral act.

Nope. Evil is evil. Minor evil acts is still evil. If the person is unwilling to do a major evil act it means just that. If 90% of their actions are evil. They are evil. It doesn't matter if they're unwilling to do a major evil act. Think of it like a scale. If the scale is neutral at 500 and you put 1000 pounds of pebbles.. the scale tips to evil. It doesn't matter if they're unwilling to do a major evil act.

Let me explain why his acts aren't neutral.

Kicking dogs? Evil. Laughing at the sick? Evil. Why? He is getting off on someone else's misfortune. Reveling in other's suffering is not neutral. It's evil. Stealing a loaf of bread from a homeless child? While theft isn't an evil act this is evil if not borderline evil. Whistling while the person is being killed? Most neutral people aren't psychopathic. They aren't swayed one way or another. The person is clearly not concerned for the person being beaten. Not only that but to him it's no different than hearing the birds chirping in the sky. He is not neutral. He's actively out there making people's lives worse. Not only that but he's enjoying doing it but he's just making sure to do it in a way that keeps him under the radar.

He's an agent of evil albeit a cowardly one.

[Yukitsu]

A lot of people seem to have the mistaken belief that if someone is evil they are irredeemably bad or have done some incomprehensible acts of cruelty. It's not. There can be petty evil. If you've done more "evil" things than "Good" things you're evil. all it requires is for you to have committed more evil acts than neutral/good acts. A bully can be evil. The jerk that abuses his family can be evil. The underground dog fighter can be evil. The man who puts people down and makes everyone's lives miserable can be evil. Many D&D settings and supplements have made it clear that it is possible to be evil and not break any laws. If evil acts are only heinous despicable things this would not be possible. A petty individual who laughs at sick people, kicks dogs, steals bread from homeless children, and whistles while walking away from someone getting the tar beaten out of them is evil.

Frankly your big list there feels pretty easy to divide into absolutely worth smiting and not evil. A guy that laughs at the sick for example doesn't harm anybody at all. He's an absolute jerk but is completely harmless and I don't see anything there that would warrant an alignment change from neutral. Similarly, someone who is stealing bread from the starving just because he can is evil enough that I'd consider it worth hunting him down and smiting him, he's fundamentally a murderer.


This implies you can be evil without being these things. For people claiming "This means detect evil is an alignment trap" no it doesn't. I am playing a Paladin in a faerun campaign and not everyone in it is "Kill worthy" just because they have an evil alignment. Detect evil still has been useful. I don't use it to see who or what I can kill but who and what I should be wary of trusting. If my gut suspicions is someone might be bad or lying and I detect evil and it turns up that he is evil it doesn't mean I smite him on the spot. It means my gut is probably right and I should be wary.

Considering that good aligned people might be antagonistic to me or lie to me, you should act like that around everyone unless your DM actually is running the world as a black and white one where all neutral or good people will never be opposed to you or your goals. In other words it's still useless since the list of people you should act like that around is everyone.


The OP's "evil character allied with the party to fight against a greater evil" is - despite being evil - acting with valor, and like a hero.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Just because he's fighting something even worse doesn't mean his crimes should get a free pass.

[Rhyltran]

Frankly your big list there feels pretty easy to divide into absolutely worth smiting and not evil. A guy that laughs at the sick for example doesn't harm anybody at all. He's an absolute jerk but is completely harmless and I don't see anything there that would warrant an alignment change from neutral. Similarly, someone who is stealing bread from the starving just because he can is evil enough that I'd consider it worth hunting him down and smiting him, he's fundamentally a murderer.



Considering that good aligned people might be antagonistic to me or lie to me, you should act like that around everyone unless your DM actually is running the world as a black and white one where all neutral or good people will never be opposed to you or your goals. In other words it's still useless since the list of people you should act like that around is everyone.



The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Just because he's fighting something even worse doesn't mean his crimes should get a free pass.

Oh, trust me. I don't fully trust anyone. We had a Lawful Neutral villain already. However, someone who pings evil under detect evil is always certainly worth keeping an eye open for. Other people might lie. They might betray you but the person who pinged evil is possibly much worse than the others. I don't think someone who steals starving people's food is worthy of death. They deserve to rot in prison. However, laughing at someone's misfortune is not neutral. Reveling in people's suffering is an evil mindset even if the act itself isn't evil. As I pointed out, there's other things that make this person evil. As you acknowledged that you do consider him evil based on the food incident. However, stealing a starving person's food isn't murder. The person might find other food. Might find some insects to eat. Is it horrible? Certainly. The character in question is horrible in his own way but he's not as bad as the guy abducting people to kill.

[Yukitsu]

Oh, trust me. I don't fully trust anyone. We had a Lawful Neutral villain already. However, someone who pings evil under detect evil is always certainly worth keeping an eye open for. Other people might lie. They might betray you but the person who pinged evil is possibly much worse than the others. I don't think someone who steals starving people's food is worthy of death. They deserve to rot in prison. However, laughing at someone's misfortune is not neutral. Reveling in people's suffering is an evil mindset even if the act itself isn't evil. As I pointed out, there's other things that make this person evil. As you acknowledged that you do consider him evil based on the food incident. However, stealing a starving person's food isn't murder. The person might find other food. Might find some insects to eat. Is it horrible? Certainly. The character in question is horrible in his own way but he's not as bad as the guy abducting people to kill.

I disagree with pretty much everything here. If I have goals, any alignment can be opposed to it for reasons that have nothing to do with alignment and if they're intelligent, they'll find the best way to achieve that goal. Similarly, just because someone is evil doesn't give them reason to try to oppose me, it's only when their goals and mine collide that they obviously become a threat. Whether or not someone is trustworthy and will not oppose me has nothing to do with alignment but rather goals. Whether or not an evil individual should be punished for being evil similarly has little to do with their goal.

I also don't particularly think that enjoying the suffering of others is spelled out as evil in D&D. Until you start pulling in quips from optional books, you've got ""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. " as the verbatim definition of evil. The more you try and pile into the game, the less workable morality in the game becomes since if you take all of the books, pretty much any action you could ever conceivably take results in some interpretation of evil.

And lastly, if someone actually is starving, that is attempting to kill them. Pretty much by definition of it. I mean I can shoot someone in the head. I can even tie someone up and light them on fire. They might survive but it's clear that I'm doing something which is pretty likely to kill them. At any rate, if I saw a person stealing food from the starving I'd certainly be willing to kill them. And people are given the death penalty in some cultures for stealing food because it literally is equivalent to attempted murder, unless you're somewhere with plentiful food, stealing it actually is attempting to kill people.

[Elbeyon]

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. "There we go. It is evil to murder an evil character. Evil is killing others.

[Yukitsu]

There we go. It is evil to murder an evil character. Evil is killing others.

The full passage states why they might kill people which doesn't include killing people for being evil. but yes, it's evil to actually play the game. It's a very meta commentary of the system. And yes, I refuse to use blue for obvious sarcasm.

[Elbeyon]

The full passage states why they might kill people which doesn't include killing people for being evil. but yes, it's evil to actually play the game. It's a very meta commentary of the system. And yes, I refuse to use blue for obvious sarcasm.Only if playing the game has killing characters in it, right? I mean, people can play dnd without deadly force in it.

[Yukitsu]

Only if playing the game has killing characters in it, right? I mean, people can play dnd without deadly force in it.

I've actually tried that, it's one of the most miserable experiences in gaming. You go from an entire plethora of options to like, 5 or even less if you're starting at lower levels. Sure there are great non-lethal abilities in D&D but they actually require you to typically finish them off before it runs out since anything you encounter will get out of a rope or manacles in 20 rounds or so. What's worse, some of the best disables in the game are explicitly tagged evil. I got like 3 sessions in before I just switched to playing it like normal along with everyone else since combat slows down and repeats itself over and over, almost like someone that you haven't killed in D&D remains a threat pretty much until they are dead. It's even worse when you're in core only since that drops non-lethal combat to saps, merciful weapons and I guess the technicality that turning someone into a rock for forever isn't killing them.

[Elbeyon]

So dnd is about killing things? People need/have to kill, or else the whole experience becomes miserable?

[Nifft]

There we go. It is evil to murder an evil character. Evil is killing others.

This is obviously why no Paladin survives her first combat.


So dnd is about killing things?
That's a significant part of it, yes.

[Yukitsu]

So dnd is about killing things? People need/have to kill, or else the whole experience becomes miserable?

In D&D, if you're going to bother using anything in the D&D books, or to have any encounters, published adventures or to use any of the class features anyone is going to have, yes. You could run an entire non-lethal game without any encounters or ignoring that you've got someone who's got 4 pages worth of notes on how he's more effective at killing people or assisting in killing people but I think you're essentially playing a free form game at that point in time. I mean there's a reason I've never seen a pre-published campaign for D&D that involves 0 killing.

If you have to play a game that involves no killing, play something that isn't D&D or just advertise it as being free form. D&D really is designed to help facilitate combat with the remainder being mostly just up to the DM and maybe some relatively non-interactive die rolling. If you're strong enough a story teller to just rely entirely on that and RP, don't bother making people build characters who are designed ground up to ground others down. If you want interesting non-combat based mechanics, play using the FATE system or something.

[Taelas]

There we go. It is evil to murder an evil character. Evil is killing others.

You're missing a bit:

""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."

Killing in defense of the innocent is a Good act. Killing for self-defense is a Neutral act. Killing purely because you want to? That's an Evil act.

Rhyltran, I agreed that those acts were Evil. They simply aren't the only acts that person does -- since you explicitly makes clear he goes out of his way to avoid committing "real" Evil acts, he must instead be doing Neutral acts (since that is the only way he can avoid the former, unless he goes straight for the Good option).

They are doing lots of small Evil acts and big Neutral ones. They're on the dark side of Neutral, but they're not Evil.

[Rhyltran]

I disagree with pretty much everything here. If I have goals, any alignment can be opposed to it for reasons that have nothing to do with alignment and if they're intelligent, they'll find the best way to achieve that goal. Similarly, just because someone is evil doesn't give them reason to try to oppose me, it's only when their goals and mine collide that they obviously become a threat. Whether or not someone is trustworthy and will not oppose me has nothing to do with alignment but rather goals. Whether or not an evil individual should be punished for being evil similarly has little to do with their goal.

I also don't particularly think that enjoying the suffering of others is spelled out as evil in D&D. Until you start pulling in quips from optional books, you've got ""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. " as the verbatim definition of evil. The more you try and pile into the game, the less workable morality in the game becomes since if you take all of the books, pretty much any action you could ever conceivably take results in some interpretation of evil.

And lastly, if someone actually is starving, that is attempting to kill them. Pretty much by definition of it. I mean I can shoot someone in the head. I can even tie someone up and light them on fire. They might survive but it's clear that I'm doing something which is pretty likely to kill them. At any rate, if I saw a person stealing food from the starving I'd certainly be willing to kill them. And people are given the death penalty in some cultures for stealing food because it literally is equivalent to attempted murder, unless you're somewhere with plentiful food, stealing it actually is attempting to kill people.

You can hurt people without being a killer or torturer. Hurt can come in other forms than just physical pain. Also a bully does fit that example. Someone who bullies others and is a miserable piece of crap doesn't have to be a murderer. My main point is that so long as you're committing more evil deeds than good deeds you are evil. That simple. Doesn't need to be complicated. Also comparing the starving thing with tying someone up and lighting them on fire is disingenuous at best. It's not remotely the same thing. Someone who lost bread and is starving can probably survive for days or even months. I'm not doubting that it's horrible and someone who does it is a scum bag but to claim it's the same as tying someone up and lighting them on fire is dishonest.


You're missing a bit:

""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."

Killing in defense of the innocent is a Good act. Killing for self-defense is a Neutral act. Killing purely because you want to? That's an Evil act.

Rhyltran, I agreed that those acts were Evil. They simply aren't the only acts that person does -- since you explicitly makes clear he goes out of his way to avoid committing "real" Evil acts, he must instead be doing Neutral acts (since that is the only way he can avoid the former, unless he goes straight for the Good option).

They are doing lots of small Evil acts and big Neutral ones. They're on the dark side of Neutral, but they're not Evil.

That doesn't fly either and I can explain why. If you go by the logic that avoiding doing really major evil acts is considered neutral and thus the neutral acts overweight the evil acts then you're also arguing that someone who has committed atrocities is also committing major neutral acts for every person he ever meets and doesn't do anything to harm them in some way. Going by this unless someone is a mass murderer who kills everything in his path everyone would be neutral. That's not how it goes. I don't think choosing not to kill the guy next to you is a neutral act.

Also if he does some neutral acts and does some evil acts but very little or no good acts there's an alignment for that. Neutral Evil. He might be more N than E but he is NE.

[Elbeyon]

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."Are you saying that you have to do all three to be evil? Someone can hurt and kill as much as they want and not be evil? Or, are you saying that they are allowed to kill as many people as they want as long as they don't hurt or oppress anyone? What is the exception that you are trying to make that allows killing to not be evil?

[Yukitsu]

You can hurt people without being a killer or torturer. Hurt can come in other forms than just physical pain. Also a bully does fit that example. Someone who bullies others and is a miserable piece of crap doesn't have to be a murderer. My main point is that so long as you're committing more evil deeds than good deeds you are evil. That simple. Doesn't need to be complicated. Also comparing the starving thing with tying someone up and lighting them on fire is disingenuous at best. It's not remotely the same thing. Someone who lost bread and is starving can probably survive for days or even months. I'm not doubting that it's horrible and someone who does it is a scum bag but to claim it's the same as tying someone up and lighting them on fire is dishonest.

You're right, lighting someone on fire is much more merciful than starving someone to death. If I had to choose, I'd kill the bread thief first.

If the guy can just go out and get another piece of bread, A) why is he starving in the first place, evidently he can get food, so he won't really be starving and B) why is this even evil? If the guy doesn't need that bread, stealing it is not evil. There's a reason that kender aren't evil in D&D, stealing isn't actually bad in and of itself. The only reason it would be bad is that it's either torturing the guy who is suffering from starvation, or actively killing him. And if the problem isn't that he's stealing, the problem is that he's torturing and murdering, then absolutely you should be allowed to kill him as a paladin.


That doesn't fly either and I can explain why. If you go by the logic that avoiding doing really major evil acts is considered neutral and thus the neutral acts overweight the evil acts then you're also arguing that someone who has committed atrocities is also committing major neutral acts for every person he ever meets and doesn't do anything to harm them in some way. Going by this unless someone is a mass murderer who kills everything in his path everyone would be neutral. That's not how it goes. I don't think choosing not to kill the guy next to you is a neutral act.

Also if he does some neutral acts and does some evil acts but very little or no good acts there's an alignment for that. Neutral Evil. He might be more N than E but he is NE.

It's more or less a result of what you're arguing honestly. If it's just a tally on the different side of things, the fact that they do more neutral matters just as much as your claim that them doing more evil matters. Personally I think that metric of tally on the different alignments is poor because I could go and just murder a few people and according to you, level out as good by then doing some minor goods, unless for some reason it works one way and not the other.

[Rhyltran]

You're right, lighting someone on fire is much more merciful than starving someone to death. If I had to choose, I'd kill the bread thief first.

If the guy can just go out and get another piece of bread, A) why is he starving in the first place, evidently he can get food, so he won't really be starving and B) why is this even evil? If the guy doesn't need that bread, stealing it is not evil. There's a reason that kender aren't evil in D&D, stealing isn't actually bad in and of itself. The only reason it would be bad is that it's either torturing the guy who is suffering from starvation, or actively killing him. And if the problem isn't that he's stealing, the problem is that he's torturing and murdering, then absolutely you should be allowed to kill him as a paladin.

There's plenty of starving people who survive on very little food. You know most people in starving countries don't die in a month, right? It's usually a slow decline that takes years unless there's literally no food. Usually people get by long enough that it can take awhile. Stealing from someone who is homeless and is struggling to get food is a cruel act. Homeless people are generally considered "starving" but can usually do well enough to survive for the rest of their life.

In this case it's still considered evil. Even if he isn't condemning him to death given the difficulty someone in that position has to go through to get food it most definitely is cruel and probably almost on the level of torture. At the same time the homeless guy probably won't actually die either. No one is arguing that the guy is anything less than cruel but it's not the same as murder either.

I'm assuming this imaginary guy is living in a place large enough to be considered a city. I don't think the homeless guy will die without that loaf of bread but it's not just simple stealing either.




It's more or less a result of what you're arguing honestly. If it's just a tally on the different side of things, the fact that they do more neutral matters just as much as your claim that them doing more evil matters. Personally I think that metric of tally on the different alignments is poor because I could go and just murder a few people and according to you, level out as good by then doing some minor goods, unless for some reason it works one way and not the other.

As for this part? Maybe. In D&D you can switch alignments. A killer can be redeemed. No one is above redemption. A person can devote the rest of his life to atone for his crimes. It also depends why he's doing the good acts. D&D makes it clear that using evil ends to achieve good results is still considered an evil action. So if he has selfish reasons for why he's doing these good things? No, he can't make up for it. So if his decision to do these good acts is to "Balance himself" on the cosmic scale it won't work.

Also remember my pebble analogy? He would have to do a lot of good pebbles to make up for the huge evil crimes he's committing and if he's doing more "huge evil" crimes? He's never going to catch up.

[Yukitsu]

There's plenty of starving people who survive on very little food. You know most people in starving countries don't die in a month, right? It's usually a slow decline that takes years unless there's literally no food. Usually people get by long enough that it can take awhile. Stealing from someone who is homeless and is struggling to get food is a cruel act. Homeless people are generally considered "starving" but can usually do well enough to survive for the rest of their life.

There's also people who get to eat huge amounts of food in countries that are starving, though that descriptor doesn't actually apply to places, only people. People who are starving do die in a month. The distribution of food in famine stricken regions is such that there are people who receive enough calories to avoid starvation, and the ones who can't acquire those do die within a short period of time.


In this case it's still considered evil. Even if he isn't condemning him to death given the difficulty someone in that position has to go through to get food it most definitely is cruel and probably almost on the level of torture. At the same time the homeless guy probably won't actually die either. No one is arguing that the guy is anything less than cruel but it's not the same as murder either.

I'm assuming this imaginary guy is living in a place large enough to be considered a city. I don't think the homeless guy will die without that loaf of bread but it's not just simple stealing either.

If he's going to live for months without that loaf of bread he isn't starving. Perhaps he's hungry, but taking a hungry person's bread is not evil. Taking a starving person's bread would be and if he actually is starving despite having that loaf of bread, yes, he will be dying without it, even in a city. People who are starving aren't plucky young rogues who can go off an pinch a loaf of bread, these are people who aren't going to be moving much at all without some calories, and who are likely in intense agony. Starvation is one of the worst ways to die.

This theoretical individual isn't likely to be starving at all though. The poor in cities will stave off death by begging or stealing, and can afford the loss of a loaf of bread. The fact that your example has no real reason to be starving and can quickly recover is the only reason you feel that denying him his dinner isn't tantamount to torture or murder, but by the same stroke, the fact he shouldn't have trouble stealing another loaf of bread is why you shouldn't bother calling the thief evil.

[Rhyltran]

There's also people who get to eat huge amounts of food in countries that are starving, though that descriptor doesn't actually apply to places, only people. People who are starving do die in a month. The distribution of food in famine stricken regions is such that there are people who receive enough calories to avoid starvation, and the ones who can't acquire those do die within a short period of time.



If he's going to live for months without that loaf of bread he isn't starving. Perhaps he's hungry, but taking a hungry person's bread is not evil. Taking a starving person's bread would be and if he actually is starving despite having that loaf of bread, yes, he will be dying without it, even in a city. People who are starving aren't plucky young rogues who can go off an pinch a loaf of bread, these are people who aren't going to be moving much at all without some calories, and who are likely in intense agony. Starvation is one of the worst ways to die.

This theoretical individual isn't likely to be starving at all though. The poor in cities will stave off death by begging or stealing, and can afford the loss of a loaf of bread.

Stealing a hungry and malnourished person's food is cruel. It's not neutral. It's just cruel for cruelty's sake. It's evil. There's also not just "Going to die in one month from a lack of food" and "Perfectly healthy." Dying from malnourishment can take years. People can get just enough to "survive" for a period of time as they continue to get thinner and more sickly.

[Yukitsu]

Stealing a hungry and malnourished person's food is cruel. It's not neutral. It's just cruel for cruelty's sake. It's evil. There's also not just "Going to die in one month from a lack of food" and "Perfectly healthy." Dying from malnourishment can take years. People can get just enough to "survive" for a period of time as they continue to get thinner and more sickly.

This keeps changing a lot, at first it was just homeless children, then it was starving people, then it was a starving person who is ambiguously in some strange city where he absolutely needs this loaf of bread, but who won't die or feel intense pain if he loses it and now it's someone who is merely malnourished, which is much less severe than starvation. I mean, that you do constantly change the scenario should be taken as a reason where calibrating it so I can't smite this person but he is actually evil should indicate that really, it's not worth saying someone who has done enough evil to be evil isn't worth smiting.

[Rhyltran]

This keeps changing a lot, at first it was just homeless children, then it was starving people, then it was a starving person who is ambiguously in some strange city where he absolutely needs this loaf of bread, but who won't die or feel intense pain if he loses it and now it's someone who is merely malnourished, which is much less severe than starvation. I mean, that you do constantly change the scenario should be taken as a reason where calibrating it so I can't smite this person but he is actually evil should indicate that really, it's not worth saying someone who has done enough evil to be evil isn't worth smiting.

Someone homeless who is dying from malnourishment is dying from starvation. You're just taking the "literally no food will die in 30 days." approach which isn't the common case. If that was the case in one month all starving people in this world will be gone. I never claimed the kid was in danger right this second but that's irrelevant. Even if he's poor begging for food there's a good chance at some point he'll die from malnourishment. Maybe he won't. Either way he's going to be hungry. He's going to be in pain. Even if he survives his entire life the guy is subjecting him to torment by taking that loaf of bread. It's cruel for cruelties sake. It's not some simple theft.

He doesn't need the bread to survive for one month. He could die years later. He may not but either way he will be suffering physical pain because this guy decided to steal his loaf. Why did he do it? I described the man to be petty. He kicks dogs. Laughs at the sick. He's not doing it because he needs the bread either. He's doing it because he's a jerk. My point is that someone can be evil without being a murderer.

You seem to be caught up that this kid has to die for this action for it to be evil. He doesn't.

[Yukitsu]

Someone homeless who is dying from malnourishment is dying from starvation. You're just taking the "literally no food will die in 30 days." approach which isn't the common case. If that was the case in one month all starving people in this world will be gone. I never claimed the kid was in danger right this second but that's irrelevant. Even if he's poor begging for food there's a good chance at some point he'll die from malnourishment. Maybe he won't. Either way he's going to be hungry. He's going to be in pain. Even if he survives his entire life the guy is subjecting him to torment by taking that loaf of bread. It's cruel for cruelties sake. It's not some simple theft.

He doesn't need the bread to survive for one month. He could die years later. He may not but either way he will be suffering physical pain because this guy decided to steal his loaf. Why did he do it? I described the man to be petty. He kicks dogs. Laughs at the sick. He's not doing it because he needs the bread either. He's doing it because he's a jerk. My point is that someone can be evil without being a murderer.

Oh, that's why.

Malnourishment is defined as not receiving a correct value of nutrients. It could even mean too much food, it's an abnormality in your nutrient uptake. Starvation is defined as either no or severely limited caloric intake. A severe limitation of your caloric intake really is going to kill you in a pretty darn short period of time unless you can get more calories at some point during a 1-2 month period. If you're at significantly below the minimum required calories per day for about 2 months you really can die, and it's pretty likely. If you're getting most of the calories you need every day, but lost one loaf of bread, it really isn't a big deal. The larger problem the poor suffer from isn't so much that they will die from a lack of calories, it's that their diet doesn't have enough proteins, vitamins or minerals which can lead to health problems or death years or whatever later. Something that loaf of bread won't be helping.

Now, if somehow this lack of this one loaf of bread is actively causing physical harm to this guy, I'm still willing to outright say you should be allowed to kill him over it. Going out of your way to do something which causes physical harm, why is that different from torture? The only difference here is you didn't bother tying him up to deny him his food until he hurt, whether or not there's rope involved it's evil enough you should consider him evil.

I think you were taking "starvation" as meaning the same thing as malnourished. Some malnourished people are starving and all starving people are malnourished, but when you say "starving" I'm pretty much going by the dictionary definition which if you follow, actually will result in them dying if they don't increase their caloric intake soon.

[Rhyltran]

Oh, that's why.

Malnourishment is defined as not receiving a correct value of nutrients. It could even mean too much food, it's an abnormality in your nutrient uptake. Starvation is defined as either no or severely limited caloric intake. A severe limitation of your caloric intake really is going to kill you in a pretty darn short period of time unless you can get more calories at some point during a 1-2 month period. If you're at significantly below the minimum required calories per day for about 2 months you really can die, and it's pretty likely. If you're getting most of the calories you need every day, but lost one loaf of bread, it really isn't a big deal. The larger problem the poor suffer from isn't so much that they will die from a lack of calories, it's that their diet doesn't have enough proteins, vitamins or minerals which can lead to health problems or death years or whatever later. Something that loaf of bread won't be helping.

Now, if somehow this lack of this one loaf of bread is actively causing physical harm to this guy, I'm still willing to outright say you should be allowed to kill him over it. Going out of your way to do something which causes physical harm, why is that different from torture? The only difference here is you didn't bother tying him up to deny him his food until he hurt, whether or not there's rope involved it's evil enough you should consider him evil.

I think you were taking "starvation" as meaning the same thing as malnourished. Some malnourished people are starving and all starving people are malnourished, but when you say "starving" I'm pretty much going by the dictionary definition which if you follow, actually will result in them dying if they don't increase their caloric intake soon.

The problem here is that a bully that physically beats people is technically "performing" some kind of "physical torture." it doesn't mean you should have the right or ability to shove a sword through his chest. It's not okay to put a sword through every "Bad" person you see. If your Paladin more resembles Dexter than a shining paragon of truth or justice? You're doing it wrong. Except, even dexter only focused on serial killers. A paladin should not get away with smiting someone who amounts to a bully. Even the person I described? Getting the crap beat out of him? Fine. Going to jail? Sure. If a chaotic good person killed him? I'd cheer. A paladin should not get away with murder. That's just it. The Paladin is held to a higher example than everyone around him.

[Nifft]

If your Paladin more resembles Dexter than a shining paragon of truth or justice? You're doing it wrong. Except, even dexter only focused on serial killers.

I really wish I could justify playing Dexter the Paladin.

[Yukitsu]

The problem here is that a bully that physically beats people is technically "performing" some kind of "physical torture." it doesn't mean you should have the right or ability to shove a sword through his chest. It's not okay to put a sword through every "Bad" person you see. If your Paladin more resembles Dexter than a shining paragon of truth or justice? You're doing it wrong.

I rather disagree. If a bully is coming along and beating someone who can't fight back, someone absolutely should be allowed to go and kill them in the context of D&D. This is one of those cases where it's absolutely not necessary, since I'm assuming you mean two kids or what have you, and just slapping the guy will somehow make him at the very least temporarily stop. If a player opts to just stab him, I wouldn't be terribly unhappy about that since let's face it, that bully isn't going to stop and that paladin can't be around forever. The reason that I think you're less willing to kill in this case isn't because someone who beats people who can't defend themselves, but rather because it's a kid.

Take an adult "bully" that goes around beating people who can't defend themselves. I'm betting you'd let your players get away with killing that "bully".


I really wish I could justify playing Dexter the Paladin.

Play a grey guard. They're still lawful good and can do exactly that.

edit added in:

Even the person I described? Getting the crap beat out of him? Fine. Going to jail? Sure. If a chaotic good person killed him? I'd cheer. A paladin should not get away with murder. That's just it. The Paladin is held to a higher example than everyone around him.

Right, so the problem isn't that it's evil to kill these "minor" evils, it's that you're talking about a law vs. chaos problem. Yes, sure a paladin should follow laws, and if he's in a town where there are laws, fine, he should respect that due process. That guy is out of town though in the wilderness where there's no laws, that exact same person, you'd be fine with the paladin smiting him then? If so you're basically playing up that a paladin always has to do the most lawful thing or they fall.

[Rhyltran]

I rather disagree. If a bully is coming along and beating someone who can't fight back, someone absolutely should be allowed to go and kill them in the context of D&D. This is one of those cases where it's absolutely not necessary, since I'm assuming you mean two kids or what have you, and just slapping the guy will somehow make him at the very least temporarily stop. If a player opts to just stab him, I wouldn't be terribly unhappy about that since let's face it, that bully isn't going to stop and that paladin can't be around forever. The reason that I think you're less willing to kill in this case isn't because someone who beats people who can't defend themselves, but rather because it's a kid.

Take an adult "bully" that goes around beating people who can't defend themselves. I'm betting you'd let your players get away with killing that "bully".



Play a grey guard. They're still lawful good and can do exactly that.

I would let my players get away with killing that bully or most characters that are considered a jerk. Unless they're a paladin. I'd expect the Paladin to bring him to justice. Now if he errs and let's the party handle it? That's fine too but if the paladin "smites evil" him..

Also no it's not a law versus chaos thing. A chaotic good character killing the bully is committing an evil act. A single evil act doesn't make you switch alignments. The paladin, however, will fall.

[Yukitsu]

I would let my players get away with killing that bully or most characters that are considered a jerk. Unless they're a paladin. I'd expect the Paladin to bring him to justice. Now if he errs and let's the party handle it? That's fine too but if the paladin "smites evil" him..

Right, but now you're talking about law vs. chaos. Yes, a paladin should be lawful and if he's somewhere where the laws would allow for proper punishment of evil, he can let that take over. Saying that a paladin can't smite evil on site though, or send them to jail just because they detected evil or whatever doesn't follow from that.

Seriously, most campaigns and the OPs scenario don't happen in cities where you're going to be dealing with those sorts of laws. Saying he can't because of them doesn't really have anything to do with the conversation, it's a different discussion about who has authority, and to whom a paladin must follow. Their alignment and god (the laws of celestia) or mortal civic laws and which take precedence which is a different can of worms.

Edit: So in your games, if you see someone beating a helpless victim, your party can't kill him without doing something evil. Right. And this is why I don't play with people who run alignment that way, they forget that D&D is a game where pretty much the entire system is developed around lethal combat encounters.

[Rhyltran]

Right, but now you're talking about law vs. chaos. Yes, a paladin should be lawful and if he's somewhere where the laws would allow for proper punishment of evil, he can let that take over. Saying that a paladin can't smite evil on site though, or send them to jail just because they detected evil or whatever doesn't follow from that.

Seriously, most campaigns and the OPs scenario don't happen in cities where you're going to be dealing with those sorts of laws. Saying he can't because of them doesn't really have anything to do with the conversation, it's a different discussion about who has authority, and to whom a paladin must follow. Their alignment and god (the laws of celestia) or mortal civic laws and which take precedence which is a different can of worms.

Edit: So in your games, if you see someone beating a helpless victim, your party can't kill him without doing something evil. Right. And this is why I don't play with people who run alignment that way, they forget that D&D is a game where pretty much the entire system is developed around lethal combat encounters.

If they see him doing it he was caught in the act. The party can tell him to stop. If the guy refuses to stop the party has the right to step in and make him stop. Even then, they caught him in the act. Even if the paladin smites evil at that point I can err on the side of them preventing him from hurting the helpless individual he's currently engaging. After all, the party doesn't know how much punishment that random guy can take or if the random guy would survive long enough for them to run over there to wrestle him off. If this guy was instead found bragging about it at the pub that he beats helpless people and the party decides to stab him in front of everyone? No. That isn't good. It's the same logic that certain shooters have used in real life. "I went in to shoot people because they bullied me." That isn't good logic. Murdering a bully for the most part isn't good. What the bully needs is a good ol' fashioned butt kicking.

Of course. As stated, if they do murder him it likely won't change their alignment. See, the paladin? He's held to a higher standard to everyone else. After all, he is a paladin.

[Yukitsu]

If they see him doing it he was caught in the act. The party can tell him to stop. If the guy refuses to stop the party has the right to step in and make him stop. Even then, they caught him in the act. Even if the paladin smites evil at that point I can err on the side of them preventing him from hurting the helpless individual he's currently engaging. After all, the party doesn't know how much punishment that random guy can take or if the random guy would survive long enough for them to run over there to wrestle him off. If this guy was instead found bragging about it at the pub that he beats helpless people and the party decides to stab him in front of everyone? No. That isn't good. It's the same logic that certain shooters have used in real life. "I went in to shoot people because they bullied me." That isn't good logic. Murdering a bully for the most part isn't good. What the bully needs is a good ol' fashioned butt kicking.

Of course. As stated, if they do murder him it likely won't change their alignment. See, the paladin? He's held to a higher standard to everyone else. After all, he is a paladin.

If they go around killing everyone they find beating helpless people would you change their alignment to evil?

When it turns out that bullies don't turn their lives around and stop beating helpless people just because you went and beat them, do you make sure to emphasize that the party's choice resulted in not a proliferation of good, but a persistence of evil?

[Taveena]

So my players are going to have to team up with an evil character in the near future if they are going stop a much greater evil. I imagine they are going to work with him to an extent but I'm curious what to do if they kill him, in regards to alignment. The evil character is not going to betray them or fight them in any way so any hostilities would have to be initiated by the party.
So my questions are in short...

Is killing a non-hostile evil character considered evil?
Is betraying an evil person considered evil if they were not going to betray you?
Do you think a good cleric would need to atone for this betrayal?
Do you think this would cause an alignment shift?

Lastly as food for thought, what if the evil npc was instead a neutral character who performed evil deeds?

Any other thoughts regarding this are welcome.

Ultimately their alignment isn't the important thing. Evil has a lot of variance, from the man who runs a scam charity for his own benefit, to the sorcerer opening up a rift to the abyss to herald a full-on invasion of the material plane.

If you were a deputy of the law who had apprehended a criminal for which the punishment was death, killing them would be Lawful. If you were a vigilante killing them to stop their crimes, it would be Chaotic.

Killing a non-innocent to prevent greater harm from coming to innocents is Good. Preventing it by OTHER means is MORE good. Defeating the Orcish horde in battle is Good, convincing the Orcish Warlord that he could gain more from an alliance is Exalted. In D&D, it's expected that the Exalted option will be harder, but more rewarding.

Killing with the primary purpose of benefiting oneself is Evil, whether they're innocent or not. Killing to further an Evil agenda, as many soldiers of the Blood War do, is also Evil. (This is why there aren't Exalted devils wandering around having ascended to Good alignment through demon-genocide.)

Killing the non-hostile figure to prevent an Evil act is not Evil, but it is slightly less Good than talking them out of it.
Betrayal is always a Chaotic act, but as mentioned, a Chaotic Good act if the betrayal is intended to prevent Evil (or further Good) and requires self-sacrifice, a Chaotic Evil act if it CAUSES evil (or heeds Good), and a Chaotic Neutral act otherwise.
A Lawful cleric may need to atone. A Chaotic or Neutral cleric likely would not have to.
A single act will not cause an alignment shift.
And as for the final question, I don't believe the target's alignment matters at all, only their intentions and actions.

[hamishspence]

Paladins are explicitly forbidden to do this, though. They will not associate with Evil characters.

Defenders of the Faith (3.0 paladin splatbook) suggests that it's "will not associate with Evil characters on a continuing basis" - but also that a short-lived alliance against a much greater threat, will not cause a Paladin to Fall.

Just because he's fighting something even worse doesn't mean his crimes should get a free pass.

But if you don't know what exactly what the crimes are - then it becomes "I'm punishing him for unidentified moral crimes" which doesn't really make much sense.


A good example - you're a party delving in a dungeon, at the bottom of which is the Time-Critical Threat. You've just lost your wizard to a monster attack. You know you're going to need a wizard to overcome the "greater evil" at the bottom of the dungeon. You meet an NPC wizard, who's lost the rest of their NPC party. They ping as evil (as 50% of randomly generated NPCs you meet do by DMG rules)- but they're a complete stranger and you know nothing else about them. They offer their help - your Sense Motive (which you've been minmaxing) tells you the offer is genuine.

You ally for the duration of the situation, defeat the Big Bad, and the wizard shrugs and says that (after he's had a good night's sleep) he's leaving the party and going off on his own.

You stab him in his sleep in order to "prevent him committing any evil acts in the future".



Even if might not qualify as a "nefarious motive" - I'd say that it would still "count as murder" - for the purposes of determining how much Corruption the players accrue - whether Paladins of Freedom would Fall, or Exalted characters lose any Exalted feats/PRC features, and so on. Especially since, the book spells out that "You must not turn on them once the task is complete, betraying the trust they put in you".

[Taelas]

That doesn't fly either and I can explain why. If you go by the logic that avoiding doing really major evil acts is considered neutral and thus the neutral acts overweight the evil acts then you're also arguing that someone who has committed atrocities is also committing major neutral acts for every person he ever meets and doesn't do anything to harm them in some way. Going by this unless someone is a mass murderer who kills everything in his path everyone would be neutral. That's not how it goes. I don't think choosing not to kill the guy next to you is a neutral act.

I am talking about a situation where they are explicitly choosing not to do Evil, not merely when they are not doing anything.

In general, a strongly Neutral act is not going to have a very big impact on your alignment. But in this situation, they are the basic guidelines the character lives by. They actively avoid doing strongly Evil acts, indulging only in petty ones. For whatever reason, they have "compunctions against killing the innocent", explicitly an aspect of Neutral.


Also if he does some neutral acts and does some evil acts but very little or no good acts there's an alignment for that. Neutral Evil. He might be more N than E but he is NE.

... what? You do realize that is the other axis and has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of Neutral I'm talking about... Right? I am talking about Neutral with respects to Good and Evil, not Neutral with respects to Law and Chaos. They use the same word for it, but they have literally nothing to do with one another, except when they intersect in True Neutral. I get that "Neutral" is used a lot, but I thought this was obvious from context.


Are you saying that you have to do all three to be evil? Someone can hurt and kill as much as they want and not be evil? Or, are you saying that they are allowed to kill as many people as they want as long as they don't hurt or oppress anyone? What is the exception that you are trying to make that allows killing to not be evil?
I am saying it is more than "killing". The reason why you kill someone matters.


As for this part? Maybe. In D&D you can switch alignments. A killer can be redeemed. No one is above redemption. A person can devote the rest of his life to atone for his crimes. It also depends why he's doing the good acts. D&D makes it clear that using evil ends to achieve good results is still considered an evil action. So if he has selfish reasons for why he's doing these good things? No, he can't make up for it. So if his decision to do these good acts is to "Balance himself" on the cosmic scale it won't work.

Also remember my pebble analogy? He would have to do a lot of good pebbles to make up for the huge evil crimes he's committing and if he's doing more "huge evil" crimes? He's never going to catch up.
Every single person in the world has selfish reasons to do Good. Some people are even addicted to the endorphin rush they get from it. There are people who have ruined their own lives in the name of altruism. If having selfish reasons to do Good were enough to disqualify it from being a Good act, then there would be no Good people.

Eh. While I agree in principle, it's not very true in practice. Some people have no remorse for their actions.

Then again, if all else fails, you can always use sanctify the wicked... but honestly, that sounds more like the setup for a Good-aligned villain, rather than a protagonist.

[Segev]

Frankly, if your definition of "kill-worthy" is "will eventually perform evil acts," then you should be killing everybody who isn't Exalted Good.

At which point you're a genocide, and that makes you, yourself, evil. Because that newborn human child? He's going to do some horridly mean and nasty things before he learns better. He may never kill anybody, but if you pasted an evil alignment on him from the get-go, his natural human tendencies as a small child would keep him there for quite some time. It's only being born Neutral that saves him from pinging early and often.

The Helm of Opposite Alignment makes it so that Joe Bartender wants to do evil things. So he'll do "small, minor" things as you suggest. Why is it that, having had this helm put on him last night, he's kill worthy before performing ANY of them, but if he hadn't had that happen and instead just started performing evil acts that led down the slippery slope, you'd give him hundreds of them before he slipped all the way from good, through neutral, to evil before you'd kill him?

And finally, when Sir Smitesalot detects Evil on Joe because Dastardly McPaladinfall has used misdirection to make Joe ping with that imp's aura, while the imp is hiding in a lead jar under the bar, is Sir Smitesalot committing an evil act for killing our still-Good-aligned Mr. Bartender? Again, yes, Dastardly set up the murder, but Sir Smitesalot is the one who willfully committed it, despite the known ability of detect evil to be fooled. Is the risk that Joe might do something evil so great that even so much as asking around to find out what he's done to earn that Evil alignment cannot wait? Sir Smitesalot is going to kill a lot of innocent people without falling, it seems, and never come any closer to Dastardly McPaladinfall as the true villain. It seems to me that being the unwitting but also almost willfully ignorant pawn of the serial killer breaks into such levels of negligence that you deserve to fall anyway.

Note that I'm not a fan of making Paladins fall capriciously. Tricking them into killing innocents isn't usually going to cut it. But when all it takes to trick them is a single spell, without so much as having to create a sense of urgency, let alone a sense of imminent evil in need of prevention? That tells me the Paladin is callous and uncaring; he's looking for an excuse to kill, and willing to spread pain and misery in a perversion of righteousness that he dares name "justice." Such a man is NOT a Paladin. He is not even Good. He's Evil.

[hamishspence]

They actively avoid doing strongly Evil acts, indulging only in petty ones. For whatever reason, they have "compunctions against killing the innocent", explicitly an aspect of Neutral.

Which may not be especially important, if the character is routinely "hurting" and/or "oppressing" without traditional Good justifications.

[Yukitsu]

Segev, the specifics of the helm are that he definitely will commit evil acts and do so gleefully and actively refuse redemption. That sort of magically compelled alignment isn't really something where normal alignment works.

And imps can't cast misdirection, but if they could, one shouldn't go around assuming that they are meant to act as though everyone that is evil has some trickery and are actually innocent and the DM shouldn't act like that sort of thing should be done from a DMing point of view. (as that definitely is trying to trap the paladin.)

I can use magic to make it look like someone was in the middle of killing someone as well (or doing anything else that you consider evil) so literally catching someone red handed isn't enough in a system that has a DM willing to jerk with their players, nor is any method of detection.

[hamishspence]

I can use magic to make it look like someone was in the middle of killing someone as well (or doing anything else that you consider evil) so literally catching someone red handed isn't enough in a system that has a DM willing to jerk with their players, nor is any method of detection.

I could see exactly that kind of magic being used in a "D&D world where the villains are smart and use the options available" - and, as such, players should be open to the possibility that people get framed.

In Forgotten Realms, evil clergies tend to moderate their behaviour, and ingratiate themselves with society by performing helpful services. Cormyr may be ruled by a LG monarch - but they tolerate the clergy of Malar (CE god of hunting) because they perform useful service. Openly attacking a worshipper of Malar without provocation other than "they have an evil alignment" will cause even LG paladins in Cormyr to come down on you like a ton of bricks.

[Yukitsu]

I could see exactly that kind of magic being used in a "D&D world where the villains are smart and use the options available" - and, as such, players should be open to the possibility that people get framed.

In Forgotten Realms, evil clergies tend to moderate their behaviour, and ingratiate themselves with society by performing helpful services. Cormyr may be ruled by a LG monarch - but they tolerate the clergy of Malar (CE god of hunting) because they perform useful service. Openly attacking a worshipper of Malar without provocation other than "they have an evil alignment" will cause even LG paladins in Cormyr to come down on you like a ton of bricks.

I can make it so that it is literally impossible for them to conclude that he is not guilty, was caught red handed and gives an honest confession of his crimes in D&D. At that level, it just stops being a moral question and more a definitive that the DM is being an ass. I mean, if you're open to that being a thing, you're going to just have to assume that even if you caught a child murderer red handed who confessed in a zone of truth, you can't punish him since he might not have actually done it.

[Taelas]

Frankly, if your definition of "kill-worthy" is "will eventually perform evil acts," then you should be killing everybody who isn't Exalted Good.

At which point you're a genocide, and that makes you, yourself, evil. Because that newborn human child? He's going to do some horridly mean and nasty things before he learns better. He may never kill anybody, but if you pasted an evil alignment on him from the get-go, his natural human tendencies as a small child would keep him there for quite some time. It's only being born Neutral that saves him from pinging early and often.
That is why I've been saying all along it's a very shaky way to play a Paladin. As Nietzsche said, "He who fights with monsters might be careful that he does not thereby become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." (Well, actually I believe he said: "Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, daß er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein." But the English translation suffices.)


The Helm of Opposite Alignment makes it so that Joe Bartender wants to do evil things. So he'll do "small, minor" things as you suggest. Why is it that, having had this helm put on him last night, he's kill worthy before performing ANY of them, but if he hadn't had that happen and instead just started performing evil acts that led down the slippery slope, you'd give him hundreds of them before he slipped all the way from good, through neutral, to evil before you'd kill him?
Because it isn't normally a switch you flip. Someone who starts slipping can be turned around much more easily than someone who is fully Evil.


And finally, when Sir Smitesalot detects Evil on Joe because Dastardly McPaladinfall has used misdirection to make Joe ping with that imp's aura, while the imp is hiding in a lead jar under the bar, is Sir Smitesalot committing an evil act for killing our still-Good-aligned Mr. Bartender? Again, yes, Dastardly set up the murder, but Sir Smitesalot is the one who willfully committed it, despite the known ability of detect evil to be fooled. Is the risk that Joe might do something evil so great that even so much as asking around to find out what he's done to earn that Evil alignment cannot wait? Sir Smitesalot is going to kill a lot of innocent people without falling, it seems, and never come any closer to Dastardly McPaladinfall as the true villain. It seems to me that being the unwitting but also almost willfully ignorant pawn of the serial killer breaks into such levels of negligence that you deserve to fall anyway.
Being tricked is not an Evil act, no, but in this case, it is one that the Paladin will Fall for, as he has "grossly violated" his Code of Conduct (they are supposed to defend the innocent). Under normal circumstances, being tricked shouldn't cause you to Fall, but in this case, the Paladin is very, very negligent in his due diligence. He is teetering on the edge of Falling as it is. As long as he makes no mistakes, he's not going to Fall. But as soon as he does...

Also, the Paladin may not be aware of misdirection. That would require him to have ranks in Spellcraft (a cross-class skill using the only true dump stat for Paladins) and succeed on a check to recognize the spell. He also gets a Will save against the effect.

But this is definitely trapping the Paladin by using his class abilities against him. Even if he's not Sir Smitesalot, using misdirection explicitly to trick the Paladin is going to do something. It may cause the Paladin to dismiss out of hand crucial information Joe has that the Good bartender willingly offers.


Note that I'm not a fan of making Paladins fall capriciously. Tricking them into killing innocents isn't usually going to cut it. But when all it takes to trick them is a single spell, without so much as having to create a sense of urgency, let alone a sense of imminent evil in need of prevention? That tells me the Paladin is callous and uncaring; he's looking for an excuse to kill, and willing to spread pain and misery in a perversion of righteousness that he dares name "justice." Such a man is NOT a Paladin. He is not even Good. He's Evil.
Obviously I disagree with him being Evil and not a Paladin, but I absolutely would make him Fall as soon as he made a mistake.

I am also not a fan of making them Fall. Frankly, under normal circumstances, a Paladin Falling should be an agreement between the DM and the player, not a punishment for a "wrong" action the player takes. (Basically, if the player knows he is going to Fall, then it's kosher.)

[Rhyltran]

I can make it so that it is literally impossible for them to conclude that he is not guilty, was caught red handed and gives an honest confession of his crimes in D&D. At that level, it just stops being a moral question and more a definitive that the DM is being an ass. I mean, if you're open to that being a thing, you're going to just have to assume that even if you caught a child murderer red handed who confessed in a zone of truth, you can't punish him since he might not have actually done it.

Why do you think adding moral complexity = Dungeon master being an ass? I'm in a campaign where I have a Paladin. I mentioned this before and I know if I detect evil on a bartender and smite him if he pings I will fall. I have played 12 levels where I haven't fallen while still killing most of the enemies that we have come across. Why? Self defense is different or protecting those in immediate danger.

Again, the setting is faerun and these things make sense. Knowing the setting is key because it means that if someone pings evil you don't just kill them. You learn more about them, keep a watchful eye on them, and remain wary. The DM isn't trying to trap me because it's not a sudden trick. I know that just because someone pings evil doesn't mean he's worthy of death. Detect evil is a tool. Not smite-o-vision.

[Taelas]

Why do you think adding moral complexity = Dungeon master being an ass? I'm in a campaign where I have a Paladin. I mentioned this before and I know if I detect evil on a bartender and smite him if he pings I will fall. I have played 12 levels where I haven't fallen while still killing most of the enemies that we have come across. Why? Self defense is different or protecting those in immediate danger.
Because adding the kind of "moral complexity" you're speaking of is essentially a house rule. Obviously a smite-on-ping Paladin in such a campaign has not been informed of the DM's policy, which makes the DM an ass. (Either that, or the player is a moron.) Even if you disagree that it's a house rule, a DM needs to be open about how he rules on alignment, especially if he has Paladin players.


Again, the setting is faerun and these things make sense. Knowing the setting is key because it means that if someone pings evil you don't just kill them. You learn more about them, keep a watchful eye on them, and remain wary. The DM isn't trying to trap me because it's not a sudden trick. I know that just because someone pings evil doesn't mean he's worthy of death. Detect evil is a tool. Not smite-o-vision.
This is not how Paladins work in Faerûn anymore than it is how they work in Greyhawk. Under normal circumstances, if a Paladin in FR has the authority to act (so he is not violating his Code of Conduct by not respecting legitimate authority), then he absolutely can kill Evil people with no more justification than from using detect evil.

If your DM rules that Evil people aren't necessarily really Evil, then obviously that is thrown out the window. But that is also not RAW.

[Yukitsu]

Why do you think adding moral complexity = Dungeon master being an ass? I'm in a campaign where I have a Paladin. I mentioned this before and I know if I detect evil on a bartender and smite him if he pings I will fall. I have played 12 levels where I haven't fallen while still killing most of the enemies that we have come across. Why? Self defense is different or protecting those in immediate danger.

Again, the setting is faerun and these things make sense. Knowing the setting is key because it means that if someone pings evil you don't just kill them. You learn more about them, keep a watchful eye on them, and remain wary. The DM isn't trying to trap me because it's not a sudden trick. I know that just because someone pings evil doesn't mean he's worthy of death. Detect evil is a tool. Not smite-o-vision.

The easy answer is that when I play a paladin, I have 0 investigation tools. At that point I'm doing what? Pretty much nothing. I mean, actually walking in on evil pretty much never happens unless it's by contrivance.

[Nifft]

Play a grey guard. They're still lawful good and can do exactly that.

Dexter the Grey Guard Paladin.

"Lawful Good, with the emphasis on awful goo."

[hamishspence]

This is not how Paladins work in Faerûn anymore than it is how they work in Greyhawk. Under normal circumstances, if a Paladin in FR has the authority to act (so he is not violating his Code of Conduct by not respecting legitimate authority), then he absolutely can kill Evil people with no more justification than from using detect evil.

In older editions, maybe. Not in 3.0 to 3.5.

And what's "authority to act" anyway?

If the paladin does part-time work as the local judge, has a few miscreants brought before him and convicted of minor offenses - scanning them and then killing the Evil ones isn't what they should be doing - because, in most jurisdictions, an Evil alignment is not "a crime in its own right".

[Taelas]

And what's "authority to act" anyway?
It just means they either aren't under a legitimate authority that they must respect (for example, if they are in an area under no law), or said legitimate authority is OK with their actions.


If the paladin does part-time work as the local judge, has a few miscreants brought before him and convicted of minor offenses - scanning them and then killing the Evil ones isn't what they should be doing - because, in most jurisdictions, an Evil alignment is not "a crime in its own right".
It isn't what they SHOULD be doing, but it is something they can choose to do. It is not against their alignment or their Code of Conduct, assuming the criminals are actually Evil.

[hamishspence]

The code of conduct says "punish those that harm or threaten innocents" - the Good alignment says "Good implies respect for life"

"Respect for life" demands that the punishment fit the crime. "Justice" and "Mercy" are the key features of Celestia - the most Lawful Good plane.

Killing a prisoner when you don't know what they've done, is not Justice.

[Taelas]

The code of conduct says "punish those that harm or threaten innocents" - the Good alignment says "Good implies respect for life"

"Respect for life" demands that the punishment fit the crime. "Justice" and "Mercy" are the key features of Celestia - the most Lawful Good plane.
"Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good."

Mercy is absolutely not a requirement for a Paladin.


Killing a prisoner when you don't know what they've done, is not Justice.
According to whom?

You do not know what they have done, but you know a) it was Evil, b) it was severe enough that you can now detect it, and c) they are already guilty of a crime (however minor).

[Segev]

Segev, the specifics of the helm are that he definitely will commit evil acts and do so gleefully and actively refuse redemption. That sort of magically compelled alignment isn't really something where normal alignment works.Sure. That doesn't change that it's a reason why killing somebody just for pinging is an Evil act of murder in and of itself. It only lends credence to my position that you must know WHY the person is pinging before you can act in a violent way on it. It's still useful! You know he's evil, so you know you should watch him (this is true even with the Helm being the cause). You know you should be cautious about his motives; they're probably more selfish than he's letting on (unless he's cheerfully unapologetic about being a selfish man).


And imps can't cast misdirection,Never said they could. I said Dastardly McPaladinfall cast it to tie the Imp's alignment to the bartender.


but if they could, one shouldn't go around assuming that they are meant to act as though everyone that is evil has some trickery and are actually innocent and the DM shouldn't act like that sort of thing should be done from a DMing point of view. (as that definitely is trying to trap the paladin.)Also true. However, it is a reason why one should not assume that everything that pings "evil" is "okay to kill" just because it pings "evil."

There's a lot of ground between "assume all pings of evil are false" and "kill everything that pings without a second thought."


I can use magic to make it look like someone was in the middle of killing someone as well (or doing anything else that you consider evil) so literally catching someone red handed isn't enough in a system that has a DM willing to jerk with their players, nor is any method of detection.And if you do, and the paladin intercedes to attempt to thwart an apparent murder-in-progress, that's no longer killing without reason other than "pings evil." That's killing with not only apparent reason, but with apparent need for absolute urgency!

At that point, the paladin's done all he could. He may have been tricked, but it wasn't because he was negligently a de facto accomplice in his own deception. It was because he truly made the best decision he was able to with his own judgment in the time he honestly believed he had.

You cannot claim that Sir Smitesalot honestly believes that if he doesn't kill Joe right that very second that some innocent is going to inevitably die by Joe's hands. Even if Sir Smitesalot waits 5 minutes before killing, it's unlikely anybody but Joe is going to die. Heck, given that we've agreed that a thousand minorly evil acts can add up to a detectable evil alignment, it's possibly NOBODY will die due to Joe's evil. Just have a thousand people with slightly less happy lives.

[hamishspence]

"Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good."

Mercy is absolutely not a requirement for a Paladin.

That might apply in combat situations - but outside of them, mercy is pretty much a requirement for Good characters, according to BOED "Good characters must not succumb to that trap" (of becoming merciless).

The novel version of Alhandra is also smart enough to realize that "Evil" does not mean "Guilty" - which is what she points out to a bunch of villagers who are about to lynch Krusk, and are asking her to Detect Evil on him so that they can lynch him with a clear conscience.




You do not know what they have done, but you know a) it was Evil, b) it was severe enough that you can now detect it, and c) they are already guilty of a crime (however minor).

Generally, Good characters don't believe All Crimes Are Equal. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AllCrimesAreEqual)

And the "crime" (or "moral offence", if the act is not illegal) could be pretty miniscule but done a large number of times.


killing somebody just for pinging is an Evil act of murder in and of itself.

Yup. "Whether or not the ends justify the means, they cannot make evil means any less evil"

Even if the "ends" are "protecting the innocent".

[Yukitsu]

And if you do, and the paladin intercedes to attempt to thwart an apparent murder-in-progress, that's no longer killing without reason other than "pings evil." That's killing with not only apparent reason, but with apparent need for absolute urgency!

At that point, the paladin's done all he could. He may have been tricked, but it wasn't because he was negligently a de facto accomplice in his own deception. It was because he truly made the best decision he was able to with his own judgment in the time he honestly believed he had.

You cannot claim that Sir Smitesalot honestly believes that if he doesn't kill Joe right that very second that some innocent is going to inevitably die by Joe's hands. Even if Sir Smitesalot waits 5 minutes before killing, it's unlikely anybody but Joe is going to die. Heck, given that we've agreed that a thousand minorly evil acts can add up to a detectable evil alignment, it's possibly NOBODY will die due to Joe's evil. Just have a thousand people with slightly less happy lives.

Yes, but your reasoning as to why he can't is still there. He just killed an innocent person. Most of the time, unless your paladin happens to have a lot of party member with fairly strange spells prepped or what have you, detect evil is really his only tool to find and stop evil. The consequence of some magic contrivance making it so he actually is killing an innocent person applies to any time a paladin does anything, forcing that into consideration is just bad DMing no matter what your moral opinion.

I also didn't agree about those "thousand minorly evil acts" since in D&D, what constitutes evil and what happens to people of an evil alignment are all very severe.

[hamishspence]

Blame Asmodeus for that - at least in the case of Baator. He was the one who talked the Lawful gods into allowing him to create a "punitive afterlife" - and when they found out that his "punishments" were designed to create new devils - and that he was actively tempting people into Evil, they were very upset.

At least by Fiendish Codex 2. Which also has a list of Evil acts of varying severity.

It wouldn't be the only example of a "unreasonably severe afterlife" - the Wall of the Faithless, in Faerun, springs to mind.

Sometimes people don't "deserve" what their afterlife does to their soul.

[Yukitsu]

Blame Asmodeus for that - at least in the case of Baator. He was the one who talked the Lawful gods into allowing him to create a "punitive afterlife" - and when they found out that his "punishments" were designed to create new devils - and that he was actively tempting people into Evil, they were very upset.

At least by Fiendish Codex 2. Which also has a list of Evil acts of varying severity.

It wouldn't be the only example of a "unreasonably severe afterlife" - the Wall of the Faithless, in Faerun, springs to mind.

Sometimes people don't "deserve" what their afterlife does to their soul.

But they were never unhappy about evils being punished very severely. They were upset that Asmodeus was strengthening his army and that he was actively corrupting people, they were still willing to grant that evil people should be sent to hell. This is only a problem in games where someone who is actually evil, who has committed to that lifestyle and mentality can be a random slightly unpleasant person. At this point, a man who is is one of these "minor evils" should really be considered neutral, or the powers that be who dictate what is good have dictated that it is just for people who have committed to minor evils deserve horrendous punishment. Take your pick.

[hamishspence]

Or the deities have very little control - being just glorified outsiders.

That can be one reason why Exalted characters are so keen on redeeming characters - to save them from a fate they don't entirely deserve.

[Segev]

Yes, but your reasoning as to why he can't is still there. He just killed an innocent person. Most of the time, unless your paladin happens to have a lot of party member with fairly strange spells prepped or what have you, detect evil is really his only tool to find and stop evil.Hardly. It's just his first tool for detecting signs of it and figuring out where to look. Paladins have high Charisma as a general rule, and (especially in Pathfinder, where it's rolled into Diplomacy) are not bad at Gathering Information. They also are adventurers, which are notoriously nosey as a category; investigate, look around, watch closely.

Again, the issue I have is with "oh, random NPC pinged evil; time to kill him" being labeled a "good" or even "acceptable" act by a good-aligned individual. Not with drawing conclusions and making plans around the knowledge that "Joe Bartender is evil."

By all means, test your food for poison. Watch to see that you're not robbed. Take his words with a grain of salt, just in case he's plotting to set you up. Warn people who seem to be putting dangerous amounts of trust in him. Look into what's going on around him with a suspicious eye, try to discern whether things written off as accidents or the like might have been his doing.

Definitely, act as if he's evil. But don't act as if he's just killed a child in front of you and is threatening to hunt down others. You do not know enough to pass a death sentence if your sole evidence is "that guy who is otherwise indistinguishable from anybody else on the street pings as 'evil.'"


The consequence of some magic contrivance making it so he actually is killing an innocent person applies to any time a paladin does anything, forcing that into consideration is just bad DMing no matter what your moral opinion.So...never use that spell? I'm not sure I follow your objection, here.

I've nowhere said, "assume the person isn't evil despite his pinging." I've pointed out that acting on the assumption because he is evil he is worthy of immediate, summary execution without so much as figuring out what it is he's guilty of is evil.

Not, "acting on the assumption he's evil" is evil, but that killing him for no other reason is.


I also didn't agree about those "thousand minorly evil acts" since in D&D, what constitutes evil and what happens to people of an evil alignment are all very severe.The RAW state that if you're evil, you ping. It doesn't matter how evil you are or what you did to be that evil. If you're "evil enough" to not be neutral, you count. You never have to kill a single person to be "evil enough" to qualify as evil. Mean, horribly viscious bullies can make others' lives miserable, and while watching a horror movie monster or even their own "snapped" victims get bloody, murderous cumuppance out of them is cathartic, it is an evil act (barring it being genuine active self-defense). It might, at best, be neutral, iff done by the victim and the victim honestly thinks it's the only way to avoid them eventually killing him. Victims of such things are often in...unsound...mental states.

But take a bully who terrorizes his office place with social attacks, snide insults, manipulation, and otherwise makes everybody miserable and drives everybody to be mean to each other on top of it, seeking his approval or seeking to avoid more bullying directed by him at them. That man is surely evil. However, he is not worthy of execution. Killing him would be evil. Even though he pings on detect evil as the malicious jerk he is.

[Yukitsu]

Or the deities have very little control - being just glorified outsiders.

That can be one reason why Exalted characters are so keen on redeeming characters - to save them from a fate they don't entirely deserve.

Given the rules for deities and the absolute level of control they can wield within their domain, I'd say that isn't true. The God's of law knew what the Pact Primeval would result in years before it was even drafted, and Asmodeus wasn't powerful enough to stop that knowledge. It seems more likely that ultimately, they viewed the arrangement as necessary.

[hamishspence]

But take a bully who terrorizes his office place with social attacks, snide insults, manipulation, and otherwise makes everybody miserable and drives everybody to be mean to each other on top of it, seeking his approval or seeking to avoid more bullying directed by him at them. That man is surely evil. However, he is not worthy of execution. Killing him would be evil. Even though he pings on detect evil as the malicious jerk he is.

Or, for Dickensian examples that might fit better than Scrooge - characters like Wackford Squeers or Creakle - who bully the children they're supposed to be teaching - yet this fell within the boundaries of what was considered acceptable by the culture of the time.

[Yukitsu]

Hardly. It's just his first tool for detecting signs of it and figuring out where to look. Paladins have high Charisma as a general rule, and (especially in Pathfinder, where it's rolled into Diplomacy) are not bad at Gathering Information. They also are adventurers, which are notoriously nosey as a category; investigate, look around, watch closely.

Again, the issue I have is with "oh, random NPC pinged evil; time to kill him" being labeled a "good" or even "acceptable" act by a good-aligned individual. Not with drawing conclusions and making plans around the knowledge that "Joe Bartender is evil."

By all means, test your food for poison. Watch to see that you're not robbed. Take his words with a grain of salt, just in case he's plotting to set you up. Warn people who seem to be putting dangerous amounts of trust in him. Look into what's going on around him with a suspicious eye, try to discern whether things written off as accidents or the like might have been his doing.

Definitely, act as if he's evil. But don't act as if he's just killed a child in front of you and is threatening to hunt down others. You do not know enough to pass a death sentence if your sole evidence is "that guy who is otherwise indistinguishable from anybody else on the street pings as 'evil.'"

Or just zone of truth him, ask him what he's done that makes him evil then smite him for whatever his answer is. If he's actually evil, the answer he gives doesn't matter tremendously, if it's bad enough that the gods of law and good would mandate his soul be tormented over it then I'm not going to argue with them.


So...never use that spell? I'm not sure I follow your objection, here.

I've nowhere said, "assume the person isn't evil despite his pinging." I've pointed out that acting on the assumption because he is evil he is worthy of immediate, summary execution without so much as figuring out what it is he's guilty of is evil.

Not, "acting on the assumption he's evil" is evil, but that killing him for no other reason is.

You could add zone of truth, but if he's actually evil and you aren't jerking the paladin around by putzing with that kind of magic, any answer he gives, if you've decided that that man's actions should be considered evil, then death is suitable enough punishment. If you have decided that it's worth condemning people who are slightly annoying to hell, I am perfectly willing to say that killing them is an appropriate response.


The RAW state that if you're evil, you ping. It doesn't matter how evil you are or what you did to be that evil. If you're "evil enough" to not be neutral, you count. You never have to kill a single person to be "evil enough" to qualify as evil. Mean, horribly viscious bullies can make others' lives miserable, and while watching a horror movie monster or even their own "snapped" victims get bloody, murderous cumuppance out of them is cathartic, it is an evil act (barring it being genuine active self-defense). It might, at best, be neutral, iff done by the victim and the victim honestly thinks it's the only way to avoid them eventually killing him. Victims of such things are often in...unsound...mental states.

But take a bully who terrorizes his office place with social attacks, snide insults, manipulation, and otherwise makes everybody miserable and drives everybody to be mean to each other on top of it, seeking his approval or seeking to avoid more bullying directed by him at them. That man is surely evil. However, he is not worthy of execution. Killing him would be evil. Even though he pings on detect evil as the malicious jerk he is.

What it does not do is define whether or not the action's you're referring to are actually evil or merely neutral. I don't think many of the example acts are evil at all.

The bully example from earlier, though that one actually beat people I was perfectly willing to let a paladin kill that one on sight however. I don't particularly see why them limiting themselves to emotional harm would make me change my view on them however.

[hamishspence]

If he's actually evil, the answer he gives doesn't matter tremendously, if it's bad enough that the gods of law and good would mandate his soul be tormented over it then I'm not going to argue with them.


The NE plane of Hades isn't particularly torturous, though it is unpleasant.

And where are you getting the idea that it's the gods of law and good that decide everything? Maybe gods of all alignments have to compromise.

[Yukitsu]

The NE plane of Hades isn't particularly torturous, though it is unpleasant.

And where are you getting the idea that it's the gods of law and good that decide everything? Maybe gods of all alignments have to compromise.

They don't of course. They did decide that hell was a suitable punishment for evil people however. Lawful evil specifically, though if their only sin was being whatever example of "evil but not so evil that I'm going to let my players do anything about them" then those deities still mandated that hell is a suitable punishment for them, that's why they signed the pact primeval.

I'd disagree that being sent to D&D Hades is merely unpleasant. Being forced into a state of sadness and ennui before turning into a worm that hags drag around seems like some kind of torture to me. Or rather if someone pumped me full of depressants, turned me into a worm and gave me to a hag I'd probably think of their actions against me as torture and not that they were being merely unpleasant to me.

And just as much, the fundamental energies of what is good and evil are saying that if you commit evil acts you deserve to be turned into a depressed worm in a hag's pocket.

[hamishspence]

Eberron leaves it pretty vague as to what afterlives for characters are like - they don't go to the same planes as the various aligned outsiders come from.

[Yukitsu]

Eberron leaves it pretty vague as to what afterlives for characters are like - they don't go to the same planes as the various aligned outsiders come from.

Yes, but Eberron paladins are allowed to smite as many nuns as they want without even detecting for evil without falling.

[hamishspence]

Not true - only Eberron clerics have the "can do what they want without Falling" rule.

When it comes to Greyhawk however, I think The Giant said it best:

D&D cosmology is utterly incoherent, being a pastiche on several real world religions that's then strained through a fundamentally incompatible alignment system where Good and Evil are both valid life choices with equally powerful patrons. D&D writers have been trying to make it make sense for 40 years; it still doesn't.

[Yukitsu]

Not true - only Eberron clerics have the "can do what they want without Falling" rule.

When it comes to Greyhawk however, I think The Giant said it best:

Huh, thought it was both. Eberron I suppose did try to be less black and white dualistic, though it does make paladins in the setting seem grossly out of place.

I generally agree with the note on the outer planes, but I also happen to think the problem is with alignment. It's definitely best to facilitate play and not just try to limit or trap your paladin.

[hamishspence]

I generally agree with the note on the outer planes, but I also happen to think the problem is with alignment. It's definitely best to facilitate play and not just try to limit or trap your paladin.


Regarding "differing campaign models" - I'd say that Eberron, and probably Forgotten Realms, fit the "Low Grade Evil Everywhere" model:


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.

and Greyhawk falls somewhere between that, and the "Evil as a Choice" model - but even that isn't one that allows for the presumption that all evil characters "deserve to be killed immediately".

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.

[Yukitsu]

The choice model is rather contradictory there. It does require fairly significant evil for him to actually become evil according to that, in that case figuring out exactly what it was is merely a formality. And a paladin should be allowed to find people who have committed real acts of evil and bring them to some form of justice which in many places would be whatever the paladin deems necessary. Does knowing what crime he committed when it actually has to be capital E Evil matter beyond being a formality, a question of due process rather than one of good or evil?

Even there, it does imply they should be dealt with. I can see why perhaps pulling out your sword and chopping a person down in the street would probably cause an unnecessary fuss among everyone else, but again it's more a matter of law rather than whether or not the paladin can kill him.

Faerun personally I found actually pans out as being cackling evil vs. shiny paragons of good more than it seems to imply there though.

[hamishspence]

The "probably" bit is relevant.

And even if they are a "terrible and wilful sinner" - they may turn out to be "not a danger to the common folk".



Faerun personally I found actually pans out as being cackling evil vs. shiny paragons of good more than it seems to imply there though.

I was thinking mostly of Ed Greenwood's Guide to the Realms - where many Evil churches are described as a publicly accepted fixture even in Neutral and Good lands.

[Yukitsu]

The "probably" bit is relevant.

And even if they are a "terrible and wilful sinner" - they may turn out to be "not a danger to the common folk".

Yes, but an uncaught murderer might not be a danger to the common folk. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be brought to justice. If you're in a town or city, dragging them in just on them pinging evil would be appropriate.

The question I would ask is if a divine agent of good is only there to protect the innocent. I would argue they are also there to punish the wicked.


I was thinking mostly of Ed Greenwood's Guide to the Realms - where many Evil churches are described as a publicly accepted fixture even in Neutral and Good lands.

Hard to guess, old pagans made churches to gods they thought were evil so they could appease them. Even then, my admittedly limited experience in the setting, we spent more of our time going into those churches, smiting everything in them to thwart some zany world ending scheme than appreciating their fair and equal treatment.

[Red Fel]

Hard to guess, old pagans made churches to gods they thought were evil so they could appease them. Even then, my admittedly limited experience in the setting, we spent more of our time going into those churches, smiting everything in them to thwart some zany world ending scheme than appreciating their fair and equal treatment.

Hey, let's not hate on the LE churches, at least.

I mean, consider Hextor's church, which promotes an orderly society, and endorses a rigorous physical fitness program. Even non-Evil citizens enjoy the protection offered by the Hextorians. And while Hextor endorses slavery, he endorses the proper care of slaves.

In short, Hextor's is the kind of Evil church you want in your neighborhood.

So let's go back to it. You have a scenario in which the Hextorian church exists in a given area, a bulwark against bandits, anarchy, and monsters. Hextor's worshipers build fortifications, protect caravans, and train local militia. A non-Evil (specifically, LN) local joins the church, not because he loves the idea of brutal totalitarianism, but because he enjoys its benefits. As a Cleric of an LE god, he pings as Evil, despite the fact that he is not Evil, does not personally commit any acts of Evil, and is unlikely to do so. He offers protection and stability to the area around him, and tends to injured soldiers and guards - all ostensibly "Good" acts.

Is a Paladin justified in smiting him?

[Segev]

They don't of course. They did decide that hell was a suitable punishment for evil people however. Lawful evil specifically, though if their only sin was being whatever example of "evil but not so evil that I'm going to let my players do anything about them" then those deities still mandated that hell is a suitable punishment for them, that's why they signed the pact primeval.

Again, you're committing a fallacy of a false dichotomy.

Nobody has said "you can't do anything about them."

What they've said is, "You shouldn't kill them out of hand."

Do you honestly think that there is NOTHING that can be done with an NPC other than ignore him or kill him? Really?

[Yukitsu]

Again, you're committing a fallacy of a false dichotomy.

Nobody has said "you can't do anything about them."

What they've said is, "You shouldn't kill them out of hand."

Do you honestly think that there is NOTHING that can be done with an NPC other than ignore him or kill him? Really?

Most of the time, yeah. Remembering this is a game where most of your character sheet is how to kill things or survive dragon attacks, investigating him isn't something our 2 skills per level cross classing virtually everything related to it paladin is going to be doing, where subdual options are extremely limited and not on a paladin's list of abilities and where you are a good majority of the time doing something relevant while far away from any relevant authority, that really is what your option is most of the time. Sure, if you're in a city you can pass him off to some other legitimate authority who is going to probably do nothing since they're only around to protect tax payers and maintain law. Most cities aren't out there to explicitly punish evil, but oh well, I guess cities are now sanctuary for any evil that doesn't want to get punished for being a mass murderer the country over.

People keep talking about redemption, but that's a many years long process that realistically fails most of the time even over decades. It's not practical from a game play stand point to try and force your players to use that unless you're making some kind of strange concession where getting caught by a paladin just causes these people to immediately rethink their lives and turn it all around, but if you're not making rehabilitation a decades long process with a low chance of success, then I'd really like to know that if I were in your game so I could consider it an option. As it stands, that option just kills gameplay.

Seriously though, if it's a morally grey world where you're in an urban environment, paladins can't do anything. The best agent to defeat evil is a neutral rogue or urban ranger. When your paladins are impotent at fighting evil and the only ones that can are rogues, you've done something wrong.

On the issue of Hextor I don't know that I agree that I would want him in my neighborhood. I'd like it if I were someone the tyrant likes, but if I were at the bottom and had to tolerate doing everything I was commanded to I certainly wouldn't want them around. A good paladin however could find himself on a quest to fight and oppose Hextor. What would you have him do then, if he can't fight the mortal agents of Hextor? Investigate them, parse out the really bad ones and the neutral ones and get horribly murdered because he's doing something slowly and frankly stupidly?

[Red Fel]

Sure, if you're in a city you can pass him off to some other legitimate authority who is going to probably do nothing since they're only around to protect tax payers and maintain law. Most cities aren't out there to explicitly punish evil, but oh well, I guess cities are now sanctuary for any evil that doesn't want to get punished for being a mass murderer the country over.

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. Seriously, this came out of nowhere. Do you really think there are no G-aligned cities? Or that even Neutral cities (ideally LN) would allow lawbreakers to just sit awhile and be released?

Most cities aren't out there to punish Evil, but they are out there to protect and provide for their citizens. This includes having a functioning justice system.


People keep talking about redemption, but that's a many years long process that realistically fails most of the time even over decades.

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. First off, this can vary wildly from one setting to another. Second, there are things that can really expedite the process, such as Atonement and Sanctify the Wicked, as well as the Emissary of Barachiel's hideously broken class features. And third, nobody said that the PCs had to be in charge of the redemption process - drop the baddie off at your local Church of Redeeming Deity #17 and let it happen. They're pros in now to deal with guys like that; they'll take good care of him.


Seriously though, if it's a morally grey world where you're in an urban environment, paladins can't do anything.

And this is just plain wrong. Even if we assume that your options are limited to (1) let's look the other way, or (2) it's murderin' time, there are situations - even in a morally grey urban environment - where a Paladin could whip out his proficient weapon and cast Create Corpse. For example, if you catch someone committing a serious crime, force is reasonable. If you try to detain someone committing a less serious crime and things get violent, their escalation is your justification.

The problem is that these are not the only two options. You can use nonlethal damage. You can grapple the guy. You can knock him out or tie him up. You can stalk him back to his lair. You can call the legitimate authorities. Or, and here's a novel one, you could use that solid Cha modifier and talk him down - intimidate or persuade him, your choice. You have options.

As an aside, if you are playing in a morally grey urban environment, the DM probably should have alerted you to this fact. Choosing to play a Paladin in that setting means understanding that you'll have to play it slightly differently than you might otherwise. Expecting to play a Paladin - or any other moral- or alignment-based class - exactly as you would in an ordinary setting just won't work quite right.


When your paladins are impotent at fighting evil and the only ones that can are rogues, you've done something wrong.

And here's the problem. Not every fight against Evil is a literal fight. Sometimes, it's a fight to improve the lot of the impoverished and oppressed. Sometimes, it's a fight to unite the people into an army. Sometimes, it's a fight for the heart of a conflicted but powerful person. Not every fight needs to involve your trusty Holy Avenger.

[Segev]

And D&D doesn't model a lot of social mechanics, but does fall into the "RP it out" camp. You're playing a paladin. RP something rather than just casting sword. You have a high Cha; roll that Diplomacy check to get Joe to like and trust you. RP being friendly but concerned if you want. Or being suspicious.

Asking around doesn't actually require any rolls if you want to RP it. And it can be done untrained anyway - agian, your high Cha helps you.

Besides, sometimes killing the evil oppressor only makes things worse. Yes, killing the diabolical high priest of the Church of Hextor is probably fitting punishment for the deaths he's arranged and the oppression he's spread around. However, once you've broken the Church's back, the anarchy left behind because you can't be bothred to solve problems that don't rely on slaughter and thus didn't help build up a LN or LG system in its place will instead lead to a CE set of gangs warring over the city, destroying the lives of many innocent LN types who were living comfortably (if a little bit quietly and nervously) in the safety of the Hextorian city.

[Yukitsu]

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. Seriously, this came out of nowhere. Do you really think there are no G-aligned cities? Or that even Neutral cities (ideally LN) would allow lawbreakers to just sit awhile and be released?

Most cities aren't out there to punish Evil, but they are out there to protect and provide for their citizens. This includes having a functioning justice system.

Right, but if he committed a crime a nation over, unless they have an extradition treaty, they aren't going to be doing much unless that person threatens their citizens. They aren't going to punish him just for being evil unless the nation just screens out anyone that pings as evil anyway.


Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. First off, this can vary wildly from one setting to another. Second, there are things that can really expedite the process, such as Atonement and Sanctify the Wicked, as well as the Emissary of Barachiel's hideously broken class features. And third, nobody said that the PCs had to be in charge of the redemption process - drop the baddie off at your local Church of Redeeming Deity #17 and let it happen. They're pros in now to deal with guys like that; they'll take good care of him.

Atonement doesn't change alignment and the other two I've seen arguments that they're also evil. There's basically just no winning depending on alignment interpretation. Your typical paladin isn't either of these however regardless.

If your church does happen to have someone who just casts sanctify the wicked on everything that comes by, sure. Just use it on everything. Tell your player that playing a paladin is useless though since they no longer have any justification for existing, just play a cleric emissary of barachiel and force convert everything. Paladins have a list of lethal combat options, if the only good option is something they can't do, why are they even in the game?


And this is just plain wrong. Even if we assume that your options are limited to (1) let's look the other way, or (2) it's murderin' time, there are situations - even in a morally grey urban environment - where a Paladin could whip out his proficient weapon and cast Create Corpse. For example, if you catch someone committing a serious crime, force is reasonable. If you try to detain someone committing a less serious crime and things get violent, their escalation is your justification.

The problem is that these are not the only two options. You can use nonlethal damage. You can grapple the guy. You can knock him out or tie him up. You can stalk him back to his lair. You can call the legitimate authorities. Or, and here's a novel one, you could use that solid Cha modifier and talk him down - intimidate or persuade him, your choice. You have options.

As an aside, if you are playing in a morally grey urban environment, the DM probably should have alerted you to this fact. Choosing to play a Paladin in that setting means understanding that you'll have to play it slightly differently than you might otherwise. Expecting to play a Paladin - or any other moral- or alignment-based class - exactly as you would in an ordinary setting just won't work quite right.

Yes, the DM definitely should have alerted you to that fact so I could avoid playing a paladin. If I wanted to fight evil in that city I can avoid using the frankly ludicrously sub-optimal options that you're recommending like subdual damage or grappling if I were a different class. Maybe you can use diplomacy but it wouldn't be the first time that one of the PCs tried to talk someone down which takes a minute during which time someone got murdered. Intimidate maybe but not likely given paladins are bad at it. Seriously, when your options are all either "I'm 5 levels above you, you better give up" or are simply completely terrible options (seriously, a grapple build paladin? Is this really something you're going to assume I built?) I mean, literally one of these is workable if they happen to be close to the same level, and that's non-lethal if I happen to have enough money to get a merciful weapon. Yeah, if my DM has a bunch of level 1s doing something evil, I can go and use a non-improved-provokes grapple


And here's the problem. Not every fight against Evil is a literal fight. Sometimes, it's a fight to improve the lot of the impoverished and oppressed. Sometimes, it's a fight to unite the people into an army. Sometimes, it's a fight for the heart of a conflicted but powerful person. Not every fight needs to involve your trusty Holy Avenger.

Leave those adventures to someone who have the ability to do those things. Unless it's a plague ravaging the land, I'm pretty much going to pick paladin as a class if I plan on hitting evil things. If you're trying to help the impoverished and oppressed, your party cleric gets to do things because they have plenty of class features that make them good at dealing with that. If you're trying to unite an army, maybe you'll be good at it but you're usually assembling an army so you can kill things with it. That's kind of what armies do. And when trying to convert someone who's powerful to good, it's still the cleric that can actually do it, not the paladin.