What happens to the little paladin?

[Branco]

I want to tell you a story.


I want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to yourselves. Go ahead. Close your eyes, please. This is a story about a little paladin (he has a cute smile) walking to a bar from the grocery store one sunny afternoon. I want you to picture this little paladin.


The little paladin arrives at the bar.






He orders a milk...



politely.





after the milk was drunken by the little paladin (lawful good alignment btw ^_^) he wants, before he leaves the bar, detect evil.










Yeah.






He concentrates and detects evil in a well lit corner of the bar.









It is a man... he drinks a glass of milk.








His mustache is white, because of the milk.







However, the paladin only knows about the person that he has an evil alignment, drinks milk and has a mustache.






He walks up to him and watches him for a while.







Then, the man asks him:







"Who are you?"








The little paladin answers:






"Doesn't matter."






The man is confused and asks him again:






"What do you want?"







The little paladin's cute smile has vanished as he solely replies:








"To kill you."










The paladin kills the man and leaves the bar.











The man's death was not unimaginably painful, in fact, he died pretty quick because the paladin critted him.













Can you see the man?











I want you to picture that dead man, with a mustache.


















Now imagine he was Adolf Hitler.











Did the paladin violate his code?


Is the deed comitted clearly evil or could she even be considered good?








You see what I'm saying is, what are you prepared to do?

[SolkaTruesilver]

The paladin clearly violated the law

He looses his paladin power

[DaMullet]

Nowhere in the Paladin's code does it say that he must follow local laws, merely that he must be lawful.

If his personal code (mandated by his patron) was to kill all evil on sight, he would be in the right. If he worshipped Heironious, he would likely fall, or at least get a warning in his sleep, because Heironious is chivalrous and doesn't like killing people when they're unarmed and only proven guilty of drinking sloppily.

[rollfrenzy]

Well, if you are in a society in which people have no rights, and are completely bound by the will of the mighty paladin order, and the paladin doesn't have to explain or prove anything, then he's ok.

otherwise....

Yeah, the Paladin commited an evil act, assuming there are laws against murdering people in cold blood. Remember paladins are LAWFULL good, not Do whatever you want with no repercussions good.

Even Hitler had rights.


@daMullet


"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

From the SRD entry on lawfull characters.
Emphasis mine

[Krellen]

He killed someone for the crime of detecting as evil?

Evil act. He falls. This has nothing to do with his code.

Lots of things detect as evil. Outsiders from evil planes detect as evil, even the less-than-1%* of them that aren't. Greedy merchants who knowingly sell shoddy merchandise and tainted food are evil. Men wearing the crowns of defeated Liches detect as evil. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html) Heck, someone that murdered a man twenty years ago and feels no remorse, but has lived an otherwise average life before and since probably detects as evil.

Detecting as evil is not a justification for murder. The little paladin murdered a man for no legitimate reason who was endangering no one. It was an evil act.

*Campaign worlds vary on how strictly the "Always" alignment entry is rated, but according to the RAW even "Always" allows for rare exceptions.

[AKA_Bait]

Deed is evil. Paladin falls. DM should contemplate an alignment shift.

Just because someone pings evil doesn't mean that a) they are (spells can fake it) and b) they deserve death.

The Paladin can't know if he's Hitler or just some guy who cheats on his taxes, even if he is actually evil. Furthermore, Paladins are Lawful, he made no attempt to find out what crime the person might have comitted and have them punished in accordance with whatever the laws of the town are.

Also:

"What do you want?"
"To kill you."
Sorry, that's not what a paladin wants.

Here is a good example of what a Paladin is supposed to do in that situation.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041115a

[ArmorArmadillo]

The most basic image of a Chaotic Stupid paladin.

Detecting someone as evil could only show that they're selfish, or maybe a little bit mean; killing them on those grounds is evil. Good doesn't believe in execution without trial, good believes in giving people chances and the value of redemption.

As for him being Hitler; Alignment of actions is only based on the things you know at the time.
If someone murders a man in an alley and takes his money, and it later turns out that man was carrying a payoff for a corrupt sheriff, it doesn't change the fact that it was a mugging.

Also the paladin code, in no uncertain terms, says that a Paladin must "Respect all legitimate authority"
That includes following local laws.

[Silentmaster101]

cheating on his taxes is a chaotic act not an evil one. but it does say in either the phb or the phbII that a paladin's lawful code has nothing to do with the local law and everything to do with his fanatical zeal.

[Telonius]

The Paladin loses their powers. It doesn't even matter if it was Hitler, Stalin, or the guy who invented pop-up ads. Killing without clear cause is an evil act. It is also acting in a dishonorable manner. The Paladin falls, and must atone to regain their power.

[Droodle]

cheating on his taxes is a chaotic act not an evil one. but it does say in either the phb or the phbII that a paladin's lawful code has nothing to do with the local law and everything to do with his fanatical zeal.Sure. If the law of the land is "not a legitimate authority", then the Paladin need not follow it. Laws against murder, however, are perhaps as legitimate as they can get. Murder is also universally regarded as evil. To quote the Wizard's page to which AKA_Bait linked:

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

[Fax Celestis]

The Paladin loses their powers. It doesn't even matter if it was Hitler, Stalin, or the guy who invented pop-up ads. Killing without clear cause is an evil act. It is also acting in a dishonorable manner. The Paladin falls, and must atone to regain their power.

I'd go so far as to say that "killing in general is an evil act". Of course, I get far fewer paladins because of this.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Falls. Evil act and grossly dishonorable. Detecting as Evil does not automatically make someone deserving of execution. Being Adolf Hitler does, but that was a coincidence. Alignment is equally about actions and intentions: the action was for the greater Good (probably (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.HitlersTimeTravelExemptionAct)) but the intention was simple cold-blooded murder. This was an act more fitting of the Punisher than a Paladin.

[Stareyes]

Given there are ways to fool the Sense Evil sense and that there are ways one's alignment can be magically altered, and given that some Evil people would not necessarily be bad enough to kill*, I would say that killing anyone in the tavern who pinged the evil-dar would at least get a warning from the Paladin's god (or whatever grants him his powers) -- and by warning, I mean 'You are on a fast train to Fallsville unless you complete this mission for me now, while not doing anything else to be un-paladin-y'. I'd probably allow a quest to redeem the paladin -- something along the lines of 'The Cult of Evil Kitten-Killers has infiltrated Townsville. Fine the cult members and bring them to justice'. And then make sure that at least one important person would ping evil if the fallen-paladin gets his cleric friend to look**, but was the only thing opposing the Cult.

* Playing on the idea that Evil is the sort that doesn't care if random bystanders are hurt by its actions -- so an overcharging shopkeeper or slumlord would also be evil -- and that the strength of one's alignment aura depends more on one's ECL than one's evilness.

** Perhaps due to some innocuous reason, like 'I'm neutral, but I've got some demon/devil/something blood'.

If the player has a problem with the way I treat the paladin's code, I might suggest an alternate character -- I don't have a problem with the archetypes of Grey-ish Scourge of Evil or Well-Intentioned Extremist, but it's not how I interpret paladins (at least the ones that stay paladins) to be. (Heck, I'm sure there's a class/prestige class for holy-warrior types that are more about killing evil than being paragons of virtue. Goodness knows, there's one for everything else.) If it was early enough in the game, I might allow him to rebuild his character along those lines.

Now, if the paladin had learned that the victim was a tyrannical leader, responsible for genocide, etc., and went after him, provided he did so in a way appropriate to his Code, he wouldn't be getting the warning/potential fall. He might be in pretty good legal trouble for killing a citizen in cold blood in front of witnesses in a public place***, but he's okay with the Forces of Good.

*** Depending on how the town handles 'paladin kills person wanted for crimes committed while on another plane' and on the actions since. I could see the townsfolk being at least a little miffed that the paladin didn't go to Proper Authorities first, even if they would have granted him permission.

[DaMullet]

Well, rollfrenzy, I can quote the same passage and make it my side.



"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

In no way does it specify, in the code or description of Lawful, that "legitimate authority" is necessarily that of a local government. For many paladins, in fact, I can argue that the only Legit Authority is the one that grants him his divine power.

And to Krellen, it's worth noting that demons, devils, and such detect as evil because they have the Evil descriptor. That's a fancy way of saying that even if they act good, they are literally composed, on the most basic level, of pure evil. Even if your world is one such where .0000005 % of "Always X" creatures are, in fact, Y, it does not change the fact that by destroying an evil outsider, you have won a victory for Good that day.

[Thanatos 51-50]

One Evil act does not induce and alignment shift into evil
The man killed someone twenty years ago, and felt no remorse, living a fairly normal (read: TN or LN) life before and after is still TN or LN.
Evil detection signifies that a person is, well, EVIL, he has commited evil acts, and intends to continue sommiting such acts.

However, killing the man in the plain view and public sight of the tavern disurpts the peace of the town. The Paladin should have waited outside the tavern and perhaps followed and/or stalked the person until his taint can be cleansed in a less immdiatly noticble manner.
(Back-alley killing, maybe.)

The little paladan earns a forceful slap upon the wrist for not being aware of his other surroundings.

[AdversusVeritas]

I'd go so far as to say that "killing in general is an evil act". Of course, I get far fewer paladins because of this.I would think you would get far few players because of that. Would you consider harming in general as an evil act as well?

[Umarth]

It really all depends on the code the paladin follows.

As several people have said if the rule for that order, not the law of the land, is being evil is an offense punishable by death then he's fine.

Some things to keep in mind: (at least from my understanding of D&D)
Killing evil creatures in D&D is not an inherently evil act.

The intentions behind an act don't matter. Killing a solar disguised as a fiend and registering as evil is an evil act. Killing a pit fiend you thought was a solar is a good act.

[Droodle]

One Evil act does not induce and alignment shift into evil
The man killed someone twenty years ago, and felt no remorse, living a fairly normal (read: TN or LN) life before and after is still TN or LN.
Evil detection signifies that a person is, well, EVIL, he has commited evil acts, and intends to continue sommiting such acts.No. Not everyone who is evil is a sociopath. Some people who are evil are just utterly self interested. There are evil aligned NPC's of all colors who refrain from violating the law....out of fear of reprisal. Given that there are very few evil acts that aren't actually illegal in civilized society, people like this really aren't a threat....and certainly don't deserve death.



Killing evil creatures in D&D is not an inherently evil act.

The intentions behind an act don't matter. Killing a solar disguised as a fiend and registering as evil is an evil act. Killing a pit fiend you thought was a solar is a good act.Wrong on all counts. A crooked merchant belongs in prison. He doesn't deserve death. If you thought you were killing a Pit Fiend when it was actually a Solar, your alignment will not shift towards evil (although the alignment of whoever it was that tricked you into killing the Solar will). If you thought you were killing a good aligned Solar and did so because you thought it was a good aligned Solar when it was actually a Pit Fiend, then your alignment will not shift towards good (although the alignment of the person who tricked you into killing the Pit Fiend may). Contrary to what people often say about alignment, intent can and does matter. Otherwise, every schlep who's ever been the target of charm person, an illusion, etc is going to potentially have an alignment change.

[Fax Celestis]

I would think you would get far few players because of that. Would you consider harming in general as an evil act as well?

Thing is, not everyone has a moral code like the Paladin's, and are therefore free to live their lives as they please. The point of moral codes is that they are difficult to follow--otherwise, they don't mean anything.

[rollfrenzy]

Well, rollfrenzy, I can quote the same passage and make it my side.

In no way does it specify, in the code or description of Lawful, that "legitimate authority" is necessarily that of a local government. For many paladins, in fact, I can argue that the only Legit Authority is the one that grants him his divine power.




Actually it doesn't say "Legitimate Authority", it just states Authority. I am discussing alignment, not code. He may be within his code (depending on god), but still be outside the necessary alignment restrictions on the class. In this case, he is both.


IMHO, the paladin would fall. The paladin had no way of knowing the depth of evil, what the man's actions were, or anyhting about him. So the paladin just committed cold-blooded murder.

Did he serve the greater good? Sure prolly. Did he do it by commitng an evil act? absolutely.

[Counterpower]

He Falls so hard he leaves cracks in the pavement, IMO. Killing a person just because they're evil is no way to defend good. Killing someone who can't fight back is murder. Heck, IMO (although I don't know if the RAW agrees with me), killing a freaking archdemon would be solidly Neutral at best if said archdemon was already a prisoner. After all, there's always powerful magic. There is always the possibility of redemption. Don't hold back in a fight to the death, but don't coup de grace the enemy after he falls either.

Edit: Wait. The paladin didn't know it was Hitler, did he? If the paladin knew it was Hitler and knew of the actions he had taken....... meh. Still only a Neutral act, probably, since there was nothing stopping the paladin from taking him prisoner.

[Fax Celestis]

Did he serve the greater good? Sure prolly. Did he do it by commitng an evil act? absolutely.

And therein lies the conundrum.

The problem is, "enacting the greater good despite the means of getting there" is not in the paladin's code. He is supposed to uphold good and defeat evil--note defeat, not destroy.

"The ends justify the means" is an evil method of thought--or at least chaotic--which leads to the fall of the paladin.

[Thanatos 51-50]

The intentions behind an act don't matter. Killing a solar disguised as a fiend and registering as evil is an evil act. Killing a pit fiend you thought was a solar is a good act.

I, personally, would rule that killing the Solar was a "justifiable mistake". Doing such would not cause a paladan to fall.
Likewise, killing a pit fiend you thought as a Solar is a "justifiable mistake"

Mistakes happen, and the Gods are aware of this. In a combat or chance situation, snap decisions are made upon which the only evidence that can be acted upon is the Detect Evil ability. So, mistakes happen in these situation, and a good God is likely to look the other way.


No. Not everyone who is evil is a sociopath. Some people who are evil are just utterly self interested. There are evil aligned NPC's of all colors who refrain from violating the law....out of fear of reprisal. Given that there are very few evil acts that aren't actually illegal in civilized society, people like this really aren't a threat....and certainly don't deserve death.

Absolutely true that not all Evil beings are sociopaths, but they are Evil enough for their aura to be registered as such. In (my interpretation of) the Paladan's Code which my charecters follow, being Evil is punishable by a Smite Evil enhanced Pointy object through something vital.
Or death, if you prefer simpler terms.

Of course, I like using stealthy paladans - or mid-level rogues turned paladan.

[AslanCross]

I'd rule this as both a chaotic and evil act. It's almost as bad as the paladin killing someone simply because he bumped into him on the street. This would cause the paladin to fall. This is a completely irresponsible act. Good is inherently altruistic, even when it is lawful. You'd put the rights and well-being of the other above yourself even if the other is evil. (At least that's how I'd play it and rule it in my game.) You'd only resort to violence if you were attacked first.

Even if the paladin had known Moustache Man was an evil and even if he had gone to the tavern for the purpose of finding Moustache Man, he'd have tried to arrest him first.

Even if the paladin was a Gray Guard, he'd have killed this guy only if he knew that it was the only way to stop Moustache Man from say, slaughtering everyone else in the tavern or from planting a bomb/deadly magical device in a place where it would kill or otherwise wreak havoc in the town later that night. Even so he'd have taken the guy out to talk to him and then stab him in the back. This would still be a dishonorable action, so he'd fall, then he'd have to atone, albeit that his Gray Guard abilities would allow him to get off easier.

[Fax Celestis]

I'd rule this as both a chaotic and evil act. It's almost as bad as the paladin killing someone simply because he bumped into him on the street. This would cause the paladin to fall. This is a completely irresponsible act. Good is inherently altruistic, even when it is lawful.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

[Krellen]

One Evil act does not induce and alignment shift into evil
The man killed someone twenty years ago, and felt no remorse, living a fairly normal (read: TN or LN) life before and after is still TN or LN.
Twenty years without remorse for his murder? That man is evil. But being evil and practising evil to an extent where only death stops you are entirely different things.

As to the comment on the outsiders bit: No. Just, No. This ridiculous idea that killing evil, "Destroying the essence of evil itself", makes you good or wins points for good is completely and absolutely false; it is, in fact, a large source of why people don't get the alignment system. Not-evil <> Good.

For the record: it is D&D canon that the evil planes are powered by the evil of men. Though they're not the original inhabitants, the current lords of the Abyss, the tanar'ri, are born from the evil and corruption of sentient beings on the Material Plane. They aren't the cause of evil, they're a symptom.

[SpikeFightwicky]

Just for curiosity's sake, why is it that in these kinds of examples, the pally never tries to turn the evil-doer over to the authorities so that he can be processed according to the legitimate authorities? I'm sure not every paladin is required to kill on site all evil.... wouldn't it serve a paladin better to see a villain defeated AND pay for his crimes in a non-lethal manner? I'm sure the 'good' side of him wouldn't want to only cause death all the time, even if it is to evil people.

[Droodle]

Absolutely true that not all Evil beings are sociopaths, but they are Evil enough for their aura to be registered as such. In (my interpretation of) the Paladan's Code which my charecters follow, being Evil is punishable by a Smite Evil enhanced Pointy object through something vital.
Or death, if you prefer simpler terms.
Sure, but your interpretation is still wrong. Unless you play in a campaign world where you are only evil if you have committed capital crimes, evil alignment alone does not justify murdering someone.

[Fax Celestis]

Just for curiosity's sake, why is it that in these kinds of examples, the pally never tries to turn the evil-doer over to the authorities so that he can be processed according to the legitimate authorities? I'm sure not every paladin is required to kill on site all evil.... wouldn't it serve a paladin better to see a villain defeated AND pay for his crimes in a non-lethal manner? I'm sure the 'good' side of him wouldn't want to only cause death all the time, even if it is to evil people.

I encourage that with my players. It makes more sense, really.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Sure, but your interpretation is still wrong. Unless you play in a campaign world where you are only evil if you have committed capital crimes, evil alignment alone does not justify murdering someone.

I just, personally, subscribe to a machivellian philosophy of leadership and control.
"It ain't pretty, and people ain't gunna like it, but thats the way things get done."

<EDIT'd>
But I'd give the guy a sword or allow him to draw his dagger/start casting a spell first.

[AslanCross]

Twenty years without remorse for his murder? That man is evil. But being evil and practising evil to an extent where only death stops you are entirely different things.


Agreed, though I think it would be fairer to say that LN and TN characters would not have murdered and felt no remorse, but they might have killed and felt no remorse.

A Lawful Neutral character would not feel remorse if he justified it to himself that he upheld the law. In such a case the LN guy would -not- have murdered (as this is an evil act or at the very least chaotic), but he would probably have killed in self defense or killed to obey an order.

A TN character would not feel remorse if---well, it depends but I ultimately don't think it would matter. A TN character would most likely say "Hey, it was either him or me." I still don't think a TN character would go out of his way to kill unless it was a life-or-death situation, if not out of respect for life, out of convenience. I doubt a TN character would actually contemplate murder.

An evil character, on the other hand, would have so many reasons to kill and not feel guilty. "He crossed me in the past," "I make money by killing," or "I did it for chuckles" would probably be the respective LE, NE and CE reasons.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Agreed, though I think it would be fairer to say that LN and TN characters would not have murdered and felt no remorse, but they might have killed and felt no remorse.

A Lawful Neutral character would not feel remorse if he justified it to himself that he upheld the law. In such a case the LN guy would -not- have murdered (as this is an evil act or at the very least chaotic), but he would probably have killed in self defense or killed to obey an order.

A TN character would not feel remorse if---well, it depends but I ultimately don't think it would matter. A TN character would most likely say "Hey, it was either him or me." I still don't think a TN character would go out of his way to kill unless it was a life-or-death situation, if not out of respect for life, out of convenience. I doubt a TN character would actually contemplate murder.


"He threatened to kill my family if I didn't pay him money that I didn't have. He could not see reason. I snuck into his bedchambers and slit his throat."

[Fax Celestis]

I just, personally, subscribe to a machivellian philosophy of leadership and control.
"It ain't pretty, and people ain't gunna like it, but thats the way things get done."

Machiavelli isn't LG. Machiavelli is LN.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Machiavelli isn't LG. Machiavelli is LN.

A paladan can still, by RAW, worship a LN or NG diety.
Alternatly, you can replace "For the good of Italy" with "For the good of the cosmic power of Good", seeing each slaughtered Evil as a point scored for the Good Guys.

[Krellen]

"He threatened to kill my family if I didn't pay him money that I didn't have. He could not see reason. I snuck into his bedchambers and slit his throat."
Virtually anyone would still feel remorse for this killing. It's the lack of remorse that really divides the line - in this particular instance - between Evil and Neutral. The neutral guy might do it, but he'd probably be haunted by it for the rest of his life.

[Fax Celestis]

A paladan can still, by RAW, worship a LN or NG diety.
Alternatly, you can replace "For the good of Italy" with "For the good of the cosmic power of Good", seeing each slaughtered Evil as a point scored for the Good Guys.

Granted, you can worship an LN deity, but your actions still have to be LG.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Virtually anyone would still feel remorse for this killing. It's the lack of remorse that really divides the line - in this particular instance - between Evil and Neutral. The neutral guy might do it, but he'd probably be haunted by it for the rest of his life.

In addition to being machiavellian, I'm just a little bit cold-hearted.
No remorse lays in the justification that -
"It happened, I had a good excuse as to why it happened, and I took the only recourse available at the time. I did nothing wrong."


Granted, you can worship an LN deity, but your actions still have to be LG.

Transpose "diety" and "Philosophy", and you have your justification.

[Arbitrarity]

Paladin's aren't clerics, so can't they worship anything?

Then again, that's a bit non-sensical.

[Fax Celestis]

In addition to being machiavellian, I'm just a little bit cold-hearted.
No remorse lays in the justification that -
"It happened, I had a good excuse as to why it happened, and I took the only recourse available at the time. I did nothing wrong."

That's LN, not LG.

[Thanatos 51-50]

That's LN, not LG.

That situation does not concern a paladan, but instead an everyman, and whther or not he would be considered evil for one murder that occured, with an otherwise normal life, and not feeling remorse after a number of years.

[Droodle]

Machiavelli isn't LG. Machiavelli is LN.Actually, I'm pretty darn sure that Machiavelli was LE.

[Fax Celestis]

Actually, I'm pretty darn sure that Machiavelli was LE.

Probably. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for the case of this argument.

[AKA_Bait]

Actually, I'm pretty darn sure that Machiavelli was LE.

I don't know why I'm getting into this but Machiavelli was probably Neutral Good just like most of us piddly little humans. Don't take everything you think about him from The Prince. The Discourses on Livy and the events of his life (getting tortured by the Medicci family for dissent as an example) show he may not even have believed much of what he wrote in the Prince.

[AslanCross]

"He threatened to kill my family if I didn't pay him money that I didn't have. He could not see reason. I snuck into his bedchambers and slit his throat."

I still see this as a case of "It was either him or me." Definitely murder, I guess. In this case I'd like to clarify that IMO a TN/CN character would not murder unprovoked. They'd definitely kill and may murder in the interest of self-preservation.

EDIT: About Machiavelli, I have heard that he didn't personally believe in what he wrote about in The Prince. I've also heard that the leader described in The Prince is required to have exemplary moral character. I haven't read his work myself so I can't really verify these, but someone else might.

[SpikeFightwicky]

I encourage that with my players. It makes more sense, really.

Whenever I'm playing a paladin in a good group I aim for that kind of mentality. I can't stand it when people use the paladin code as a license to kill (evil), with (what I consider) an 'ends justify the means' mentality.

[Droodle]

I don't know why I'm getting into this but Machiavelli was probably Neutral Good just like most of us piddly little humans. Don't take everything you think about him from The Prince. The Discourses on Livy and the events of his life (getting tortured by the Medicci family for dissent as an example) show he may not even have believed much of what he wrote in the Prince.I'm fairly certain that, for the sake of this little debate, we're talking about the literary Machiavelli.

[Dausuul]

In addition to being machiavellian, I'm just a little bit cold-hearted.
No remorse lays in the justification that -
"It happened, I had a good excuse as to why it happened, and I took the only recourse available at the time. I did nothing wrong."

*shrug* I can see the basis for that approach, and I'm not saying it's unreasonable, but it is antithetical to what paladins are and do. If you were a paladin, that attitude would almost certainly cause you to fall, because paladins take a different approach to questions of morality, one which doesn't allow for "necessary evil."

[Arbitrarity]

By definition, humans are crossing all spectrums, with an average of true neutral.

Literary Machiavelli's Prince is a calculator. He does the greatest good he can, in the most efficient way he can. He defines himself as good, because that's what he does. His methods are definately questionable, and non-good, but his results, his views, are lawful good, in his own opinion. In objective terms, wherein the ends do not justify the means, he varies between LN and LE. It's carefully planned, obviously lawful, his results and views are good, but his actions are evil through neutral, depending on whether you judge him by his actions, or his planned results to those actions.

If you judge both, then he probably ends Lawful neutral. However, that is the entire point of the Prince, to sacrifice his own moral well-being for the comfort of others.

Actually, I haven't even read the book, that's what I've gathered from Wiki, talk around forums, etc. Any inaccuracies are incorrect interpretations.

[lord_khaine]

personaly, i tend to act acording to how strong the aura is, weak to moderate is something to keep an eye on, and maybe stop in the near furture, but when the meter says strongly evil then its time to act.

[Fax Celestis]

By definition, humans are crossing all spectrums, with an average of true neutral.

Literary Machiavelli's Prince is a calculator. He does the greatest good he can, in the most efficient way he can. He defines himself as good, because that's what he does. His methods are definately questionable, and non-good, but his results, his views, are lawful good, in his own opinion. In objective terms, wherein the ends do not justify the means, he varies between LN and LE. It's carefully planned, obviously lawful, his results and views are good, but his actions are evil through neutral, depending on whether you judge him by his actions, or his planned results to those actions.

If you judge both, then he probably ends Lawful neutral. However, that is the entire point of the Prince, to sacrifice his own moral well-being for the comfort of others.

Actually, I haven't even read the book, that's what I've gathered from Wiki, talk around forums, etc. Any inaccuracies are incorrect interpretations.

That's fairly accurate.

The point here, though, is that Paladins aren't supposed to act like him.

[Krellen]

I don't know why I'm getting into this but Machiavelli was probably Neutral Good just like most of us piddly little humans.
Piddly little humans are Neutral, not Neutral Good. Neutral Good entails a level of service to the well-being of others absent in the general piddly little human.

[AKA_Bait]

Actually, I haven't even read the book, that's what I've gathered from Wiki, talk around forums, etc. Any inaccuracies are incorrect interpretations.

Don't take this the wrong way, but as someone who as taught philosophy on the college level, please, please, please, please don't argue for interpretations and positions on things (Machiavelli or otherwise) when you haven't actually read the document yourself.


The point here, though, is that Paladins aren't supposed to act like him.

100% with ya Fax.

[Arbitrarity]

Don't take this the wrong way, but as someone who as taught philosophy on the college level, please, please, please, please don't argue for interpretations and positions on things (Machiavelli or otherwise) when you haven't actually read the document yourself.



K. Understood. Makes perfect sense, seeing as uninformed arguments are both easy to disprove (argument from ignorance?), rarely bring anything new to a debate, and are often inaccurate and decieving.

Mind you, I haven't had much of an opportunity to read the thing.

[Telonius]

Full text of "The Prince" here (http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince.txt). Have fun!
:sabine: :xykon: :nale: :redcloak:: "We approve of this message."

[Arbitrarity]

Sweet :smallamused:

*is glad he reads really fast*

[brian c]

Now imagine he was Adolf Hitler.

I'm probably the 15th person to say something like this, but way to Godwin your own thread.

[cody.burton]

That doesn't Godwin the thread. Godwin's law only applies to threads not related to tough moral questions like this or staples of Hitlers regime (genocide, propaganda, etc.).

[Fax Celestis]

That doesn't Godwin the thread. Godwin's law only applies to threads not related to tough moral questions like this or staples of Hitlers regime (genocide, propaganda, etc.).

Nope, wrong again. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_Law) Godwin's Law states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

[mudbunny]

That doesn't Godwin the thread. Godwin's law only applies to threads not related to tough moral questions like this or staples of Hitlers regime (genocide, propaganda, etc.).

Yup, furthermore, from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_Law)




Godwin's law does not question whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable.

In this case, you could argue that, despite the reference to Hitler, there is actually no fulfillment of Godwin's law.

[The Gilded Duke]

From what I read of the Prince it seems that the author there doesn't really fit any of the alignment categories in dnd.

Anarchy is seen as causing the most suffering and being the worst condition. Order must be kept to prevent anarchy. A weak state is prone to destruction and anarchy. Keeping the state (and the prince) strong is necessary to prevent anarchy. To keep the state strong you will need to take immoral and dishonest acts.

To try and fit it into DND...
The ruler must act Chaotic Evil,
to support the Lawful Evil government,
To acheive good for all (a neutral good sentiment?)

Assasination, Betrayal, Lawbreaking, it is all in there.
--------------------

As far as the little paladin, his cuteness and littleness was mentioned again and again. Is the cute and littleness meant to sway us in a certain way? Either to suggest that cute littleness is a justification, or that our decisions are based upon that which is unimportant?

As earlier mentioned though killing everyone who seems evil on first inspection seems like a bad idea. Not all evil people commit crimes or evil acts. Not all crimes and evil acts deserve death. (I'd say none do, but objection to the death penalty is another thread) Not everyone who seems evil is evil.

The major problem I have with DnD and other roleplaying games is that they don't examine the consequences of death and murder. While part of this is due to the great burden it would be for the dm to figure out the reprocusions of every monster and villians death, alot of it has to do with how the game is set up. How many things do you need to kill to get to level 20?

How is that many deaths going to destabalize a region?

----------------------
Refuse the Half-Orc Paladin

Refuse was an ugly Half-Orc who grew up on the streets. He stole when he was younger, but also stood up for weaker urchins. When he grew up, he renounced the mistakes of his past, but embraced the actions he did well. He joined the local paladin order.

Refuse had just used one of his Cure Disease abilities to heal a begger in the poor part of town. He needed to relax so he went to the local bar and ordered a big jug of prune juice.

Then he saw a cute little paladin attack and strike down the local painter Adolf with a sword. He struck down the cute little paladin, and beat him to unconciousness. He used lay on hands to heal Adolf the painter.

Refuse let Adolf Hitler go with his apologies. He took the cute little paladin back to the order for questioning.

Was Refuse right in his actions?

[Quietus]

Refuse the Half-Orc Paladin

Refuse was an ugly Half-Orc who grew up on the streets. He stole when he was younger, but also stood up for weaker urchins. When he grew up, he renounced the mistakes of his past, but embraced the actions he did well. He joined the local paladin order.

Refuse had just used one of his Cure Disease abilities to heal a begger in the poor part of town. He needed to relax so he went to the local bar and ordered a big jug of prune juice.

Then he saw a cute little paladin attack and strike down the local painter Adolf with a sword. He struck down the cute little paladin, and beat him to unconciousness. He used lay on hands to heal Adolf the painter.

Refuse let Adolf Hitler go with his apologies. He took the cute little paladin back to the order for questioning.

Was Refuse right in his actions?

Yes. Neither of them know anything about Adolf's actions, so neither knows why he's pinging evil. You have to assume the best of people, innocent till proven guilty and all that - now, if there was proof of Adolf's actions, then there'd be problems.

[Fenix_of_Doom]

Yes. Neither of them know anything about Adolf's actions, so neither knows why he's pinging evil. You have to assume the best of people, innocent till proven guilty and all that - now, if there was proof of Adolf's actions, then there'd be problems.


It gets even better, the original post implies that killing Hitler will do a lot of good, this isn't necessarily the case, it is nothing that prevent an even worse dictator from coming to power, one that let's say ends up nuking the whole world. Of course the opposite is just as likely, but you can't claim your actions are good when your not even certain of the results.


[QUOTE=AKA_Bait;2945944]I don't know why I'm getting into this but Machiavelli was probably Neutral Good just like most of us piddly little humans. QUOTE]

I wonder where you get the idea most humans are Neutral Good?

[AKA_Bait]

I wonder where you get the idea most humans are Neutral Good?

I may simply be misremembering but I thought in one of the older editions humans were 'usually neutral good'. Might be off my rocker though.

And as for in RL, well, if I didn't think most humans were more good than evil (and not in bettween either) I'm not sure I'd have much justification for not killing them all. ;-)

[Branco]

Refuse the Half-Orc Paladin

Refuse was an ugly Half-Orc who grew up on the streets. He stole when he was younger, but also stood up for weaker urchins. When he grew up, he renounced the mistakes of his past, but embraced the actions he did well. He joined the local paladin order.

Refuse had just used one of his Cure Disease abilities to heal a begger in the poor part of town. He needed to relax so he went to the local bar and ordered a big jug of prune juice.

Then he saw a cute little paladin attack and strike down the local painter Adolf with a sword. He struck down the cute little paladin, and beat him to unconciousness. He used lay on hands to heal Adolf the painter.

Refuse let Adolf Hitler go with his apologies. He took the cute little paladin back to the order for questioning.

Was Refuse right in his actions?

Yes. Yes, he would be... if we were talking about the real world!

But take into consideration that I was talking about dnd, a world where good and evil is absolute. In such a world only the actions of someone define their respective alignment. In such a world there is no point in arguing about the intentions behind an action.

The cute little paladin kills Adolf Hitler (let's say post-holocaust Hitler aka Adolf Hitler, responsible for the death of millions of jews, for example).

It doesn't matter if he knew only that Adolf was evil and sloppily drinking his milk. I'm sorry, but killing Adolf Hitler is not an evil act in dnd. If it was, Miko wouldn't have fallen for killing Shojo. If it was, every newborn would be considered undeniably evil.

If it was, Adolf wouldn't be showing up as evil in the first place...

[Foeofthelance]

Refuse the Half-Orc Paladin

Refuse was an ugly Half-Orc who grew up on the streets. He stole when he was younger, but also stood up for weaker urchins. When he grew up, he renounced the mistakes of his past, but embraced the actions he did well. He joined the local paladin order.

Refuse had just used one of his Cure Disease abilities to heal a begger in the poor part of town. He needed to relax so he went to the local bar and ordered a big jug of prune juice.

Then he saw a cute little paladin attack and strike down the local painter Adolf with a sword. He struck down the cute little paladin, and beat him to unconciousness. He used lay on hands to heal Adolf the painter.

Refuse let Adolf Hitler go with his apologies. He took the cute little paladin back to the order for questioning.

Was Refuse right in his actions?

As posted, yes, Refuse acted in the correct manner. He just saw another Paladin attack an unarmed and defenseless man with a sword. Even then he refrained from killing the other Paladin outright, instead bludgeoning him unconcious, so that questioning can occur later. (For all Refuse knows, the Paladin has been bespelled.) Healing Adolf is also the correct thing to do, even if there was proof of Adolf's wrong doings before him. The blatant attack violates various laws, and as has been stated, unless the Paladin order has the right to arbitrarily dispense justice it is up to the local authorities to determines Adolf's fate.


It doesn't matter if he knew only that Adolf was evil and sloppily drinking his milk. I'm sorry, but killing Adolf Hitler is not an evil act in dnd. If it was, Miko wouldn't have fallen for killing Shojo. If it was, every newborn would be considered undeniably evil.

Actually, Shojo was Lawful Neutral if I recall correctly, and perhaps his ownly "sin" was playing the game of politics. Miko fell for kiling for no other reason then he wasn't following her code of honor. Since he wasn't a paladin, merely in control of them, there was no need for him to be restricted in such a way. Killing Post-WWII Hitler would not be an evil, no more so then ambushing and slaying a BBEG at his dinner table. He's done evil, will do evil, and provably so. If it is Post-WWII Hitler, then the Little Paladin is justified in his actions.

And how would new borns be listed as unequivally evil? At the worst case, their low Int scores should force them all to be true neutral.

[Fenix_of_Doom]

I may simply be misremembering but I thought in one of the older editions humans were 'usually neutral good'. Might be off my rocker though.

And as for in RL, well, if I didn't think most humans were more good than evil (and not in bettween either) I'm not sure I'd have much justification for not killing them all. ;-)

I could see that happening, it's not uncommon for people to have a little idolised view of their own race. If the earlier versions were made by an optimist giving 'usually neutral good' alignment to humans isn't that strange.
Well it does depend on how you define alignments, but personally I hope more people are good then evil, but reality is probably a lot harsher.

[Arbitrarity]

Alas, cognitive bias strikes us all. Then again, I may not be qualified to make that statement:smallwink:

Anyways, given a population of which there are equal parts good, evil, and neutral, and of which there is no manner of differentiating them in a manner which is reasonable, is it morally reasonable to kill them all?

(Note: Not a serious question, merely a reflection upon both a statement and existance)

[Krellen]

But take into consideration that I was talking about dnd, a world where good and evil is absolute.
No, good and evil are objective in D&D. That's different from absolute. If good and evil were absolute, then the only people that would ping evil would be the paragons and epitomes of evil - Evil Outsiders, for instance - and the same would be true for pinging good.

But that's not how it works.


In such a world only the actions of someone define their respective alignment. In such a world there is no point in arguing about the intentions behind an action.
Nonsense. Intent absolutely matters. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html) If intent did not matter, Elan's destruction of the Dungeon of Durokan would have made him evil. He endangered the very fabric of reality itself with his action, and it may be nothing more than luck that it didn't release the Snarl.

But Elan intended the destruction as a means to finally seal the deal with Xykon as a defeated foe and thwarted villain. He intended his action to be good, despite the evil it may very well be in reality.


I'm sorry, but killing Adolf Hitler is not an evil act in dnd.
In the circumstances you detailed, yes it is. If you would like to claim otherwise, please show me where it says killing something evil is all the excuse you need. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment)

By this line of thinking, the soldiers on the front lines of the Blood War aren't evil; after all, they're slaughtering evil outsiders, aren't they?

[Saph]

By this line of thinking, the soldiers on the front lines of the Blood War aren't evil; after all, they're slaughtering evil outsiders, aren't they?

Come to think of it, that's hilarious.

If killing evil outsiders scores you Good Points (tm) then both the demons and the devils fighting the Blood War are getting more good all the time! The ones that survive do so by killing their opponents, and each time they do it they become more Good-aligned!

Eventually, every surviving devil will become Lawful Good, and every surviving demon will become Chaotic Good, and the multiverse will implode due to alignment imbalance.

- Saph

[The Gilded Duke]

Yes. Yes, he would be... if we were talking about the real world!

But take into consideration that I was talking about dnd, a world where good and evil is absolute. In such a world only the actions of someone define their respective alignment. In such a world there is no point in arguing about the intentions behind an action.

It doesn't matter if he knew only that Adolf was evil and sloppily drinking his milk. I'm sorry, but killing Adolf Hitler is not an evil act in dnd. If it was, Miko wouldn't have fallen for killing Shojo. If it was, every newborn would be considered undeniably evil.

If it was, Adolf wouldn't be showing up as evil in the first place...

I understand how in standard dnd there are absolute (or at least attempted) definitions of alignment. I haven't ever seen it suggested that intension plays no part in alignment.

Some of the most evil creatures in standard dnd are Devils and Demons. Most Devils are killed by Demons. Most Demons are killed by Devils.
When they kill each other in the blood war, is that good?
Would a veteren Devil soldier be himself good because of the number of demons he has killed?

Also even in standard dnd they have gone away from the concepts of absolute good and evil. In various non-eberron products they have depicted good succubi and evil angels. Eberron just makes things even more blurry.


----
There is absolute evil in dnd, the outsiders as mentioned. But even they apparently can be redeemed. They can also fall.

As far as alignment goes, I definatly like Eberron much better. The different Evil Organizations usually have different conflicting agendas. Good organizations are shown to sometimes do horrible things. And then there are the radiant cults... angels that want to invade the world.

[Arbitrarity]

At least one of the Lords of The Nine is a fallen angel, not to mention erinyes, for example.

[Dervag]

Well, if you are in a society in which people have no rights, and are completely bound by the will of the mighty paladin order, and the paladin doesn't have to explain or prove anything, then he's ok.

otherwise.... the Paladin commited an evil act, assuming there are laws against murdering people in cold blood. Remember paladins are LAWFULL good, not Do whatever you want with no repercussions good. It isn't always evil to break a law.

However, it is almost certainly evil to kill someone who hasn't actually done anything wrong simply for their intentions (equivalent to killing Hitler when he was just an army corporal with a grudge in 1919).

This little paladin should probably lose his powers unless he was killing a Hitler who had actually committed great evils in the past. If he merely sensed the potential for great evil in a person he should pursue nonviolent solutions.


It gets even better, the original post implies that killing Hitler will do a lot of good, this isn't necessarily the case, it is nothing that prevent an even worse dictator from coming to power, one that let's say ends up nuking the whole world. Of course the opposite is just as likely, but you can't claim your actions are good when your not even certain of the results.That reasoning leads to paralysis, because no mortal can ever know all the possible consequences of their actions.

You have to go with what you know. If you knew that guy in the corner with a milk mustache had killed millions of people and would happily kill millions more, then it would be OK to kill him, in my opinion. It is precisely because you don't know that it is not OK to kill him. For all you know, he's just a selfish petty little bastard with a stupid mustache.

But you can't know the consequences of inaction any more than you can know the consequences of action. So you can't justify inaction by your lack of foreknowledge, because the lack of foreknowledge argues just as strongly against inaction as against action.

[Fenix_of_Doom]

It isn't always evil to break a law.

However, it is almost certainly evil to kill someone who hasn't actually done anything wrong simply for their intentions (equivalent to killing Hitler when he was just an army corporal with a grudge in 1919).

This little paladin should probably lose his powers unless he was killing a Hitler who had actually committed great evils in the past. If he merely sensed the potential for great evil in a person he should pursue nonviolent solutions.

That reasoning leads to paralysis, because no mortal can ever know all the possible consequences of their actions.

You have to go with what you know. If you knew that guy in the corner with a milk mustache had killed millions of people and would happily kill millions more, then it would be OK to kill him, in my opinion. It is precisely because you don't know that it is not OK to kill him. For all you know, he's just a selfish petty little bastard with a stupid mustache.

But you can't know the consequences of inaction any more than you can know the consequences of action. So you can't justify inaction by your lack of foreknowledge, because the lack of foreknowledge argues just as strongly against inaction as against action.

If your logic would be correct then I'd have to conclude that there is no right action.
There is however a third option: making a different action, not killing him, but trying to sway him from his way, or something like that. I guess I mean to say not killing isn't the same as inaction thus your logic fails.

[ArmorArmadillo]

No, good and evil are objective in D&D. That's different from absolute. If good and evil were absolute, then the only people that would ping evil would be the paragons and epitomes of evil - Evil Outsiders, for instance - and the same would be true for pinging good.

But that's not how it works.


Nonsense. Intent absolutely matters. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html) If intent did not matter, Elan's destruction of the Dungeon of Durokan would have made him evil. He endangered the very fabric of reality itself with his action, and it may be nothing more than luck that it didn't release the Snarl.

But Elan intended the destruction as a means to finally seal the deal with Xykon as a defeated foe and thwarted villain. He intended his action to be good, despite the evil it may very well be in reality.


In the circumstances you detailed, yes it is. If you would like to claim otherwise, please show me where it says killing something evil is all the excuse you need. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment)

By this line of thinking, the soldiers on the front lines of the Blood War aren't evil; after all, they're slaughtering evil outsiders, aren't they?

QFT.
Also, for the record, Miko's did not fall because the D&D system judged her actions to be evil: She fell because author Rich Burlew decided that she would to advance the plot of his story.

My biggest pet peeve about alignment debates is that most who argue against use intentionally bad interpretations of it as evidence of it's inferiority.

If the little paladin was my player, and I made him fall: there would be no page to which he could flip and prove that the rules say other wise.

The masterstroke of Eberron was that it was the first system to recognize that Alignment, more so than any other rule of the game, is something that is supposed to be interpreted by the players and DM; and that debates about it are supposed to happen, because ethics and morality are things that are debated! The flaw in the system only appears when we try to make the alignment system a drag and drop "catch-all" and choose to stretch it beyond any usefulness.

[Snooder]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and post the unpopular, but really correct stance.

Paladin does not fall. Guy detected as evil. The reasons for him detecting as evil don't really matter. If he detects as evil, he is evil as far as the Paladin knows. True, there are ways of hiding and faking alignment, but those are relatively rare. It's like a court case, if there is evidence proving a criminal's guilt, the burden of proof switches from the prosecution to the defense to counter said evidence.

Now the Paladin has a choice of whether to allow evil to exist, or to act in a proactive manner and destroy evil. Neither of those actions is inherently good. The first isn't because he is allowing evil to exist. As the saying goes, "all that's required for evil to prosper is that good men do nothing". The second isn't because there are ways and means for him to destroy/eliminate the evil that have differing moral implications.

In order to eliminate the evil, the Paladin could have:

Killed him
Converted him to good
Followed him home, spent years investigating him and finding out WHY he is evil, then killed him


Option 2 and 3 are the most "good" solutions. 3 is the perfectly lawful good solution. However, 2 and 3 also take a lot of time. Paladin has to be out thwarting evil, he doesn't really have a lot of time to waste investigating one minor evil.

Here's the way I see it. "live and let live" is a nice moral approach. Most people would certainly prefer it to the "suffer not the witch to live" sort of mentality. However, just because it's nice, does not make it the ideal of Lawful Good. Lawful in its extreme means a rigid and unbending approach. Good means a steadfast opposition to evil. When you combine those, you tend to leave very little room for mercy and forbearance.

The basic outline of my argument is this:
1. destroying evil is not evil
2. the man detected evil
3. if someone detects as evil, then the Paladin should treat him/her as if he is evil until further notified
4. A Paladin is under obligation to thwart evil
5. Killing the man is the fastest way of handling #4

That said, the Paladin really should have talked to the guy first to get some background on who he was. Also, killing every evil person takes time out of countering large evils and dealing with the legal consequences is a pain in the ass.

[Arbitrarity]

Considering that 1/3 of humans should detect as evil, there aren't many people left with that stance, seeing as PHB defines humans as having roughly even spread over alignments.

[Krellen]

A really nice analysis, Snooder. Unfortunately, your conclusion is wrong. Fortunately, I can show you why.

It's this sentence:

Good means a steadfast opposition to evil.
That's not the definition of good at all.

The definition of good is as follows:
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment)

Good isn't good because it opposes evil. Good is good because it helps and uplifts people.

[Belteshazzar]

Depends on what system his order or deity operates under.

Hardcore, "Burn the heretics and purge the land with flames" could be a logical system for preempting evil in a world where that quiet man in the corner could be a receptacle of Asmodius.

However it is likely that unless this is taking place in "the grim future of tomorrow in which there is only War *coughhammercough*" the deity in question will at least temporaily strip the paladin of all powers until he has understood how to not abuse them.

While the shady orc in the corner may be evil now that is not to say that he will always be evil? Will you damm his soul to hell before it is ripe enough for the grace of heaven?

[Branco]

No, good and evil are objective in D&D. That's different from absolute. If good and evil were absolute, then the only people that would ping evil would be the paragons and epitomes of evil - Evil Outsiders, for instance - and the same would be true for pinging good.

Yeah, you're right. Objective is much more fitting.



Nonsense. Intent absolutely matters. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html) If intent did not matter, Elan's destruction of the Dungeon of Durokan would have made him evil. He endangered the very fabric of reality itself with his action, and it may be nothing more than luck that it didn't release the Snarl.

If intend did not matter, it would not have made him evil. But his action would be counted as an evil act.


But Elan intended the destruction as a means to finally seal the deal with Xykon as a defeated foe and thwarted villain. He intended his action to be good, despite the evil it may very well be in reality.

No, he did not. Celia lies about Elan's actual intentions. Quote: I say, if intend doesn't matter, let it not matter in our favor! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0278.html)

So the comic actually supports my view of dnd alignments.


In the circumstances you detailed, yes it is. If you would like to claim otherwise, please show me where it says killing something evil is all the excuse you need. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment)

I can't show this passage because it doesn't exist. And saying that evil is all the excuse someone needs is not the issue I wanted to adress. Maybe you are making reasonable assumptions that I support the cute little paladin's modus operandi, but I do not. Sooner or later he's gonna kill someone who is not post-holocaust Adolf Hitler. All I'm saying is intend doesn't matter


By this line of thinking, the soldiers on the front lines of the Blood War aren't evil; after all, they're slaughtering evil outsiders, aren't they?


I once read that if it weren't for the Blood War, all of the multiverse would be infested with evil outsiders wreaking havoc on the plains. So the Blood War is actually the noblest thing I can imagine someone doing. Damning yourself to a life of eternal war to ensure the safety of all of the multiverse.

So why aren't evil outsiders good?

They have the evil subtype, that's why. Supernatural creatures entirely composed of the evil that men do.

That's a bizarre explanation. But the premise is equally bizarre.

[Arbitrarity]

IIRC, aren't illithid responsible for the blood war?

That seems... odd.

[AslanCross]

Regarding Refuse the Half-Orc Paladin:

If by "right in one's actions" you mean Lawful Good and remained true to the paladin's code, yes, Refuse acted in the right way.

1. He attempted damage control after another paladin (who may have been a member of his order) committed a chaotic and evil act. A good, lawful, and honorable act.

2. He respected the lives of both Adolf Hitler and Little Paladin, regardless of who they are. A good act.

3. He brought Little Paladin in for questioning, upholding the law and order. A lawful act.


The only conflict I know that the illithid are related to is the Githyanki/Githzerai conflict, and the mind flayers didn't even really cause that. (It was a philosophical/ethical differences between the two Gith races, IIRC).

[Arbitrarity]

Mind flayers enslaved githyanki and githzerai, who, after overthrowing their masters, seperated due to serious philosophical differences.

Hmmmm... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illithid)

Aha.
Such was their might that the Blood War paused as the demons and devils considered a truce to deal with the illithid empire.


Eventually, the primary slave race of the illithids developed resistance to the mental powers of their masters, and revolted. Led by the warrior Gith, the rebellion spread to all the illithids' worlds, and the empire collapsed. The illithid race itself seemed doomed.

Fortunately for the illithids, Gith was betrayed by one of her own generals, Zerthimon, who believed she had grown tyrannical and over-aggressive. Civil war erupted, and the race factionalised into the githyanki and the githzerai. This disruption allowed the illithids to retreat to underground strongholds where they still dwell.

[ZeroNumerous]

This is why in my games I disregard the Paladin code. With base-paladin, I usually drop the good half and craft it into Lawful Neutral. Why? He's Lawful because he attains to his personal code, he's Neutral because you gotta do what you gotta do to get the job done. He opposes evil by choice, not because he's Good, so why should he be forced to act Good when that has no bearing on his choice to oppose Evil?

[Dausuul]

I
In order to eliminate the evil, the Paladin could have:

Killed him
Converted him to good
Followed him home, spent years investigating him and finding out WHY he is evil, then killed him


Option 2 and 3 are the most "good" solutions. 3 is the perfectly lawful good solution. However, 2 and 3 also take a lot of time. Paladin has to be out thwarting evil, he doesn't really have a lot of time to waste investigating one minor evil.

If he has no time to deal properly with this particular bad guy, then it's his duty to let this one go. Paladins don't get to commit evil deeds, period. No matter how much evil it may thwart. The man is evil, but that doesn't automatically mean he deserves death. Unless the paladin knows that the man deserves to die, he's not allowed to kill him... and even if he does, it's worth remembering Gandalf's words to Frodo:

"Deserves it! I dare say he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."


Here's the way I see it. "live and let live" is a nice moral approach. Most people would certainly prefer it to the "suffer not the witch to live" sort of mentality. However, just because it's nice, does not make it the ideal of Lawful Good. Lawful in its extreme means a rigid and unbending approach. Good means a steadfast opposition to evil. When you combine those, you tend to leave very little room for mercy and forbearance.

Good has nothing to do with steadfast opposition to evil. Good is about being willing to sacrifice to help others. You can devote your life to healing and helping other people, but flee whenever Evil shows up, and your alignment will stay solidly good. Conversely, you can battle steadfastly all day against the forces of Evil and still be evil yourself (as others have pointed out, the Blood War is a perfect example).


The basic outline of my argument is this:
1. destroying evil is not evil
2. the man detected evil
3. if someone detects as evil, then the Paladin should treat him/her as if he is evil until further notified
4. A Paladin is under obligation to thwart evil
5. Killing the man is the fastest way of handling #4

Okay, see, by this logic a paladin could deliberately take an action that would bring about the destruction of the entire multiverse, and he wouldn't fall, because he's obligated to thwart evil, and destroying the multiverse thwarts all the evil there is.

Paladins are not utilitarians. They don't get to commit little evils to prevent bigger evils. That's not how they roll.


I once read that if it weren't for the Blood War, all of the multiverse would be infested with evil outsiders wreaking havoc on the plains. So the Blood War is actually the noblest thing I can imagine someone doing. Damning yourself to a life of eternal war to ensure the safety of all of the multiverse.

So why aren't evil outsiders good?

Because they're not waging eternal war to ensure the safety of the multiverse. They're waging it because they all want to overrun the multiverse, and to do that they need to eliminate the competition.

[The Gilded Duke]

Mind flayers enslaved githyanki and githzerai, who, after overthrowing their masters, seperated due to serious philosophical differences.
Aha.

Reveals information about the plot of the game Planescape Torment

One of your party members in Planescape Torment Da'kan is a Githzarzai. He reads and learns and studies the Unbroken Circle of Zerthimon, the scriptures of the Githzarai people. As you gain wisdom you can speak with him and learn the history of his people, and through this learn powerful spells.

Along the way you surpass his own studies and realize why. Zerthimon was tortured by the Illithid when they thought he had rebellious thoughts. According to the Unbroken Circle he managed to mask his desires and so the Illithids noticed nothing. A later chapter spoke of betrayal.

The chapter Da'kan was confused about was about the declaration of two skies. Zerthimon decided that the Gith had become cruel, and that instead another way should be pursued. This split the race into two. This allowed the Illithid to survive. Da'kan has begun to think that the founder of his race, and the most important religious figure of it was a tool of the Illithids.

As the game progresses you can help him with his crisis of faith. Many of the ideas discussed have to do with just this topic, is it important to do what is good, or what produces good?

[mockingbyrd7]

Paladin falls from grace. He slew an unarmed man without provocation simply because the man was "evil" according to his detect evil power. Very dishonorable and evil. If after being detected, the evil man stood up, drew a sword, scowled, and came towards the paladin, then the paladin would be entitled to use deadly force. If the paladin had seen the evil man do something blatantly and strongly evil, like murder someone, then the paladin would probably be entitled to use deadly force.

Personally, I would have kept a close eye on the man, but never even reached for my sword until I actually saw the man putting the life of myself or an innocent in danger. I wouldn't have interrogated him, because that would have been a violation of privacy (not necessarily an Evil act but still unpaladinly).

[Droodle]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and post the unpopular, but really correct stance.

Paladin does not fall. Guy detected as evil. The reasons for him detecting as evil don't really matter. If he detects as evil, he is evil as far as the Paladin knows.Wrong. Completely wrong. Not all evil aligned people commit capital crimes. In fact, many evil aligned people don't even break the law (out of fear of reprisal). Not all who are of evil alignment are sociopaths. Not all who are of evil alignment commit crimes. Evil characters don't care if their actions hurt others. This does not mean that evil characters go out of their way to do so. In fact, in a civilized society, most will not. Unless it is somehow profitable or in their best interest to hurt someone and the reward is greater than the risk of being caught, an evil character who is not a sociopath is likely to refrain from doing so. Most Evil characters don't kill puppies and drown baby kittens in their spare time.

[Branco]

Wrong. Completely wrong. Not all evil aligned people commit capital crimes. In fact, many evil aligned people don't even break the law (out of fear of reprisal). Not all who are of evil alignment are sociopaths. Not all who are of evil alignment commit crimes. Evil characters don't care if their actions hurt others. This does not mean that evil characters go out of their way to do so. In fact, in a civilized society, most will not. Unless it is somehow profitable or in their best interest to hurt someone and the reward is greater than the risk of being caught, an evil character who is not a sociopath is likely to refrain from doing so. Most Evil characters don't kill puppies and drown baby kittens in their spare time.


Yes, that's right not all evil aligned people commit capital crimes, but











WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ADOLF HITLER!!!!

THINK OF THE JEWS DAMMIT!!!!












So would the cute little paladin, in this specific case, fall?

[Fawsto]

Dude, the Paladin fell so hard that he left marks on the floor. This is cold blooded murder.

If a Paladin was to get his hands on Hitler, he would first try to arrest the ****er, if it don't work, he would now kill the bastard for his evil deeds.

Now, it raises a good point:

The Paladin detected evil, now, he doesn't know if the guy did evil things, he didn't know that the guy was Hitler, his "spell like ability" told him to kill the guy? NO! Detect evil's main function is to see if the Paladin should investigate someone, and them, knowing the crimes of the evil person, do something, otherwise detect evil is just a excuse to cold blooded murder.

As I said, paladin is no more.

edit: By the way, fast unjustified killing is still evil, unjustified torture followed by killing is just a little more evil than fast unjustified killing.

[Krellen]

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ADOLF HITLER!!!!
You made no indication the little paladin knew it was Adolf Hitler, nor that he was killing him in response to his atrocities to others. You made it rather plain that the reason the little paladin killed the man is because he detected as evil; because that was his reason, he did an evil act - he murdered.

Why does that matter? Well, that's quite simple: intent matters.

You're misunderstanding a key fact about objective morality: just because the morality is objective - because there is a clear, absolute answer to "what is good" and "what is evil" - does not mean that subjective views and internal perceptions do not affect this. While this does mean a man cannot simply excuse his evil by genuinely believing himself good, it does mean that a man's good intent can temper - if not wholly negate - the evilness of his deeds. And vice versa.

[Foeofthelance]

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ADOLF HITLER!!!!

That doesn't quite mean as much though, sorry Branco. The fate of the Little Paladin does vary on which Hitler is in question. For the sake of the thread most people have been assuming that we've been dealing with his Pre-Nazi days, when he was just a struggling painter who was only toying mentally with the words "Final Solution". In which case the Little Paladin has just erred most grievously. Now, if it is the Post WWII Hitler then the Little Paladin would indeed be justified, as the person he was slaying is a genocidal dictator who sparked the single most massive international war to date.

But consider this example, as a counter to the argument that being detected as Evil is an automatic death sentance:

10,000 years ago the Archlich Karzinix and the Great Gold Wyrm Alluviarasil did battle. In the process of the battle Karzinix's crown was rent asunder by the golden dragon. Part of the destroyed crown contained the Blood Ruby*, which fell to the earth and lay in the field below. Over the years the Blood Ruby was buried, until it was dug up by Farmer Olsen.

Farmer Olsen rejoices at his find, as such a gem as the one he found is worth more gold then he ever expects to make in the rest of his life. Not only is it enough to pay for a decent house to be built on his lands, but will allow him to buy even more land and hire the people to work it. Farmer Olsen and his family are set for life!

He takes the gem, which unknown to him exudes a powerful evil aura, and has it appraised. The appraiser doesn't have enough gold to purchase the gem out right, but does have enough to secure the right to purchase it. Gold in hand, Farmer Olsen heads off to the tavern to celebrate. There he has the unfortunate accident of running into the Little Paladin, who detects the gem's aura. Convinced Farmer Olsen is evil, the Little Paladin attacks and slays the defenseless farmer.

The only difference between this scenario and the one presented in the OP is one victim can be said to deserve his fate, while the other doesn't. But in both cases the Little Paladin only knows one thing, that both men detect as Evil. Yet he makes no attempt to find out why. That is the reason he falls; not because he struck an unarmed man, but because he willfully and deliberately attacked an unarmed and defenseless man who had comitted no known or proven evil.




*Blood Ruby: Major Artifact, Finger of Death DC 35, Once per day per character level. Cause Fear, 5/hour. Must be either soaked in the blood of five five year old children, or user must sacrifice half their current hit points permanantely (one time) and one HP per level gained afterwards. If only on HP is gained at a level, then the PC loses that HP. These requirements do not apply to Undead. An Undead attempting to use the Blood Ruby must instead pass a DC 25 Will save, or be dominated by the Ruby.

[Lemur]

Paladin falls. Murdering Hitler in cold blood is still murder in cold blood. It's the sort of job you'd give a cute little assassin (although I'd say the assassin is quite unartistic if he does it like the paladin), it's certainly not the behavior fitting a paladin.

Now, lets toss things aside, and say murder and all this alignment gunk doesn't matter. It's Hitler, right? Surely he deserves to die.

Our cute little paladin has still broken his cute little paladin code. How? He has acted without honor, by killing an unarmed man who wasn't defending himself. If the paladin wanted to kill the man without breaking his code, he should have challanged Hitler to a duel to the death. If Mustachio refuses, tough luck for the paladin, he can't do it.


Good isn't good because it opposes evil. Good is good because it helps and uplifts people.

thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou. Not really related to the rest of my post, but still, thank you for saying this.

[Krellen]

thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou. Not really related to the rest of my post, but still, thank you for saying this.
You're welcome. I like to use St. Cuthbert as the prime example for this: The deity himself is LN, but his primary portfolio is the opposition and destruction of evil. If good = opposing evil, why isn't Cuthbert Good?

The simple answer, obviously, is that the equation is wrong.

[Tor the Fallen]

I want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to yourselves. Go ahead. Close your eyes, please.

Ummmm, this is the internets! We can't do that here!

[Foeofthelance]

Paladin falls. Murdering Hitler in cold blood is still murder in cold blood.

This is something I would perhaps take issue with. If it is Post WWII Hitler, then it would also be safe to assume that he had some sort of notoriety earned amongst the forces of the world. It very well might stand to reason that Little Paladin's order has "Execute On Sight For Crimes Against the Gods and His Fellow Man" orders.

[Lemur]

Right, but if that was the case, the paladin wouldn't have needed to use Detect Evil, he just would have needed to confirm the man's identity as Hitler and carry out his orders. In the scenario, the paladin's priority seems to be killing evil people, instead of specifically killing Hitler (or Convenient Bad Guy X, for those in the audience who tire of Godwin's Law).

Either way, it still seems a bit sick to me to walk up to someone, and watch them for a while with a smile on your face, then get serious and say "I'm going to kill you now". Now, I don't have any personal issues with sick behavior like that so long as a villainous type is doing it, but I'm not sure it's how a paladin should act.

[Snooder]

The man is evil, but that doesn't automatically mean he deserves death.


Yes, it does.



"Deserves it! I dare say he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."


See, here's the point, Gandalf with that statement is not really lawful. Lawfully, he should be quite happy to pass out sentences to those who deserve it.



Good has nothing to do with steadfast opposition to evil. Good is about being willing to sacrifice to help others. You can devote your life to healing and helping other people, but flee whenever Evil shows up, and your alignment will stay solidly good. Conversely, you can battle steadfastly all day against the forces of Evil and still be evil yourself (as others have pointed out, the Blood War is a perfect example).


A "good" person who is a coward cannot be Paladin. Fleeing when evil shows up is a cowardly action. I never said that the definition of Good is that you oppose evil. I said being good means opposing evil. I meant that in the sense that a consequence of being good is wanting to oppose evil. If evil hurts innocents, then to protect innocents, you must stop evil. A cleric who focuses on healing can flee from evil because his method of protecting innocents is to heal them after they have been hurt. We are not talking about him. We are talking about a Paladin. Paladin protects in a proactive manner. Or, rather, since there is leeway in how Paladins can be roleplayed, the Paladin is allowed the choice of protecting in a proactive manner. Which most take because otherwise, why would the character not be a Cleric?



Okay, see, by this logic a paladin could deliberately take an action that would bring about the destruction of the entire multiverse, and he wouldn't fall, because he's obligated to thwart evil, and destroying the multiverse thwarts all the evil there is.


I think the miscommunication here is that you are defining killing the man as evil. It isn't. If the guy is evil, then killing him is not an evil act. Paladin detected him as evil, thus, to the Paladin, the guy is evil. End of story. To a Paladin, or anyone with faith, when your god tells you something, you do not question it. If the guy is detecting as evil when he shouldn't, well, that's a problem with the way detect evil works, not a problem with the Paladin's reaction.



Paladins are not utilitarians. They don't get to commit little evils to prevent bigger evils. That's not how they roll.


See above


I see so far 2 different questions that need to be answered.
First, is killing someone who is evil is evil?
Second, is someone who detects as evil should be treated as evil?

Basically that's what it boils down to. Especially when you remember that the original guy wasn't some random peasant farmer, but specifically Adolf Hitler. We KNOW Adolf Hitler is evil. Lets not quibble about whether its a pre/post WWII Hitler, the point of using Hitler is to have someone we can agree is evil.

Now, with this simplified scenario, we can try to answer question 1.
My answer is no. Evil is specifically the killing of innocent lives. An evil person is not innocent, hence the action is neutral at worst. It may or may not be good, but it is NOT evil.

Now, the second question is a little more complex, and ranges farther from the original scenario than intended, I believe.
On the one hand, detect evil is a skill granted to you by your god. Faith requires a mostly unwavering belief in the god. Not having faith that detect evil works, especially with no evidence to the contrary, is a little hard to think of in a Paladin. So, to a Paladin, someone who detects as evil is evil until further notice.
On the other hand however, a Paladin of any experience should know of items and spells that can alter alignment. Rare is (or SHOULD be) the case where detect evil is false, but it has been known to occur. Should he then ignore that improbable chance that detect evil is giving him a false positive?
Personally, I think a Paladin given the high amount of faith and trust he places in his god would trust that his god would not let him down. And, more importantly, even if he is wrong, his god would not allow him to fall for demonstrating faith.

[Varnithis]

I'm not going to make this overly complicated.

Paladin falls unless he knew the man and his terrible crimes. Yes, it was Hitler. Yes, he needed to die.

If the Paladin knew it was Hitler, knew his terrible crimes, and knew he was past redemption, Paladin was in the right.

If the Paladin just whacked him for being evil, didn't know he was hitler, or the player knew it was hitler OOC and whacked him in a metagaming move, Paladin falls so hard he cracks the pavement. Killing a random bum just cause he dings evil is Chaotic and certianly not good. You cannot convince me otherwise.

Paladin's in my game who kill things "just cause they're evil," fall. No ifs, ands, or buts. You can argue about it all you want, but when I DM i simply disallow "Lawful Stupid".

[cody.burton]

Much of the disagreement here seems to stem from what is defined as evil. Is the person that cuts you off in traffic, just because he's a jerk, evil?

If you go with 1/3 of humanity is good, 1/3 is neutral, and 1/3 is evil, then yes, he would probably ping as evil, just for being malicious and petty. In this world, a paladin killing someone who pings as evil is wrong.

If you say that 99% of humanity is neutral and only 0.5% is evil, then someone who pings as evil has to be pretty bad. Then the paladin would be justified in acting on a detect evil.

[Malachite]

Hypothetical situation:

A drug pusher is standing on a corner - I actively see him dealing the stuff out. Since he's making his living from destroying the lives of others and likely not caring, I'd say it's a safe bet I can peg him as evil. I have a gun.

By your definition, shooting him would be the height of moral and ethical behaviour that a paladin is called to.

I challenge that and call that both chaotic (murder is illegal) and evil (it's cold-blooded murder). I say that the height of moral and ethical behaviour is to perform an arrest and hand him over to the authorities for trial and judgement. A paladin the ultimate cop IMO - acts within the law, respecting the lives of others, and only uses lethal force if necessary to protect the lives of himself and others.

[Citizen Joe]

Relevant information about the paladin


Code of Conduct

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

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

Associates

While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Ex-Paladins

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


Note that nowhere in the code does it dictate that you are required to kill all evil (or kill at all). The closest code requirement is punish those who harm or threaten innocents. At the time of the OP situation, the evil guy in the corner had not demonstrated any harm or threatening of innocents. An added difficulty is that paladins can't detect innocence, so even if said villain threatened someone, he couldn't be sure that person was innocent.

Note also the legitimate authority business. Whether you like the mayor or whoever is running the show doesn't matter if they were duly appointed. They ARE the legitimate authority. The law in question for the OP seems to be murder. Laws against murder are fairly common, even in evil societies.

[PaladinBoy]

Yes, it does.

What about mercy? Part of being Good is showing mercy and forgiveness to even the most vile villians. I would also say that the less evil they are, the more inclined a Good character should be towards mercy. In this case, if the paladin only killed Hitler because he pinged evil, then he's not being very merciful to someone whose only known crime is....... well, nothing as far as the paladin knows. If he had standing orders against Hitler, and recognized him....... then we still have the problem that Hitler cannot stand against the paladin in hand-to-hand combat. An arrest is possible, and the better option, because it allows for a trial by lawful authority and the possibility, however remote, of redemption. Since a paladin is a paragon of Good, why would he not take the most Good course available?

Oh, and "showing mercy" is not synonymous with "you can go free". I would describe the necessary action when facing a person that pings evil as "a minor detention pending investigation of suspected misdeeds" which would be more commonly described as arresting him.


See, here's the point, Gandalf with that statement is not really lawful. Lawfully, he should be quite happy to pass out sentences to those who deserve it.

Even if it means showing no mercy whatsoever and washing the streets with the blood of the 1/3 of the human race that has so much as a weak evil aura? Not Good at all. Being completely and utterly merciless towards evil is, in fact, Evil.


A "good" person who is a coward cannot be Paladin. Fleeing when evil shows up is a cowardly action. I never said that the definition of Good is that you oppose evil. I said being good means opposing evil. I meant that in the sense that a consequence of being good is wanting to oppose evil. If evil hurts innocents, then to protect innocents, you must stop evil. A cleric who focuses on healing can flee from evil because his method of protecting innocents is to heal them after they have been hurt. We are not talking about him. We are talking about a Paladin. Paladin protects in a proactive manner. Or, rather, since there is leeway in how Paladins can be roleplayed, the Paladin is allowed the choice of protecting in a proactive manner. Which most take because otherwise, why would the character not be a Cleric?

I actually agree with the sentiment that someone who runs from evil whenever it shows up, no matter how powerful the evil is, is verging on neutral. They're not completely Good; if they recognize their faults and try to stand up to evil in the future, then it's a little better. If they have good intentions but end up retreating in the face of overwhelmingly powerful evil, then they actually probably are still Good, though.


I think the miscommunication here is that you are defining killing the man as evil. It isn't. If the guy is evil, then killing him is not an evil act. Paladin detected him as evil, thus, to the Paladin, the guy is evil. End of story. To a Paladin, or anyone with faith, when your god tells you something, you do not question it. If the guy is detecting as evil when he shouldn't, well, that's a problem with the way detect evil works, not a problem with the Paladin's reaction.

And what happens to those people who you killed because detect evil gave a false positive? Are you going to show any remorse for the people who have died because you were trigger-happy? Why shouldn't you have faith in their ability to redeem themselves if you give them the chance?

Somebody linked to that WotC article with the paladin....... that's an excellent example of what a paladin should do. It's still trying to destroy evil....... by redeeming it. That is, ultimately, better than just killing them. It's a matter of math, for once.

Kill an enemy, you lose an enemy.
Redeem an enemy, you lose an enemy and gain a friend.

Which is better for Good's cause? Which is better for you? Which is better for the enemy?


I see so far 2 different questions that need to be answered.
First, is killing someone who is evil is evil?
Second, is someone who detects as evil should be treated as evil?

Basically that's what it boils down to. Especially when you remember that the original guy wasn't some random peasant farmer, but specifically Adolf Hitler. We KNOW Adolf Hitler is evil. Lets not quibble about whether its a pre/post WWII Hitler, the point of using Hitler is to have someone we can agree is evil.

Now, with this simplified scenario, we can try to answer question 1.
My answer is no. Evil is specifically the killing of innocent lives. An evil person is not innocent, hence the action is neutral at worst. It may or may not be good, but it is NOT evil.

I actually agree. Generally, it is not evil to kill evil. Neutral at worst.


Now, the second question is a little more complex, and ranges farther from the original scenario than intended, I believe.
On the one hand, detect evil is a skill granted to you by your god. Faith requires a mostly unwavering belief in the god. Not having faith that detect evil works, especially with no evidence to the contrary, is a little hard to think of in a Paladin. So, to a Paladin, someone who detects as evil is evil until further notice.
On the other hand however, a Paladin of any experience should know of items and spells that can alter alignment. Rare is (or SHOULD be) the case where detect evil is false, but it has been known to occur. Should he then ignore that improbable chance that detect evil is giving him a false positive?
Personally, I think a Paladin given the high amount of faith and trust he places in his god would trust that his god would not let him down. And, more importantly, even if he is wrong, his god would not allow him to fall for demonstrating faith.

Yes, he should treat them as evil. Which, as I said above, does not mean killing them. And for an experienced paladin, some high percentage of evil auras he detects belong to people that

1)are no threat to him
2)are relatively minor evil

It's not necessary to kill them. Unnecessary killing is wrong; it shows no respect for life. Good characters should show mercy, and have faith in the power of redemption, which is a better solution anyway.

A paladin's god should have him fall, because of non-Good lack of respect for life, lack of mercy, and lack of faith in forgiveness and redemption.

And to summarize my position on the OP, it mostly hinges on whether the paladin recognized Hitler. If he didn't, then it was unjustified to kill someone when you don't even know what they may have done to deserve death. A better course would be to detain him while you found out who he was and what he had done. This also gives you time to attempt redemption.

If he did recognize Hitler, then the killing was probably neutral verging on good. However, it was probably also dishonorable. I don't think Hitler was known for being skilled in hand-to-hand combat. Thus, it would be killing someone who can't fight back......... and since he's already got major advantages, the paladin is probably capable of taking Hitler alive. Which is preferable to killing him.

[Citizen Joe]

See also Detect Evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm)



You can sense the presence of evil. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.
1st Round
Presence or absence of evil.

2nd Round
Number of evil auras (creatures, objects, or spells) in the area and the power of the most potent evil aura present.

If you are of good alignment, and the strongest evil aura’s power is overwhelming (see below), and the HD or level of the aura’s source is at least twice your character level, you are stunned for 1 round and the spell ends.

3rd Round
The power and location of each aura. If an aura is outside your line of sight, then you discern its direction but not its exact location.

Aura Power

An evil aura’s power depends on the type of evil creature or object that you’re detecting and its HD, caster level, or (in the case of a cleric) class level; see the accompanying table. If an aura falls into more than one strength category, the spell indicates the stronger of the two.
{table="heading"]Creature/Object |Faint Moderate |Strong |Overwhelming
Evil creature (HD) |10 or lower |11-25 |26-50 |51 or higher
Undead (HD) |2 or lower |3-8 |9-20 |21 or higher
Evil outsider (HD) |1 or lower |2-4 |5-10 |11 or higher
Cleric of an evil deity (class levels) |1 |2-4 |5-10 |11 or higher
Evil magic item or spell (caster level) |2nd or lower |3rd-8th |9th-20th |21st or higher
[/table]


Given that real world people are likely level 5 or less (and definitely under level 10), 'Hitler' would have registered as Faint evil. And that isn't even technically true. The location that 'Hitler' was sitting would have been detecting as faintly evil. Since evil auras can linger, it wouldn't be unheard of that a great evil was sitting there earlier.

[Mike_G]

An appropriate use of Detect Evil in this situation would give the Paladin probable cause to investigate the man. If he asked around, (or had one of his party who actually has social skills ask around) and found out that the man is an evil dictator responsible for around 30 million deaths, then yes, Smite Away.

But, in the scenario presented, the guy with the moustache could be a serial jaywalker, or a petty burglar who steals from anybody, without thought to how much that loss will hurt them, which is evil enough to give a faint aura, but certainly not evil on the same scale as genocide.

That's a big problem I have with Detect Evil. All the "strength" of the aura tells you is hit dice, and not much about that, unless you're dealing with a cleric or outsider. So, Hitler at 10th level is the same strength aura as a 1st level commoner purse snatcher.

Hardly grounds for summary execution.

Verdict: He should fall like a Frenchman's trousers in a bordello.

[bosssmiley]

Has anyone called Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) on this thread yet? If not: why not? :smallannoyed:

As for a paladin falling for killing a nasty, vicious-minded, mean-spirited person in an unprovoked attack. I'd say:

1st offence - a slap on the wrist (restriction of paladin powers) and atonement/quest before he's back in the god's good graces.
Repeat offence - he's already falling and heading for Blackguard territory ("Remember Arthas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthas_Menethil)").

v--- Yeah, I was gonna state things with that much clarity and logic next too. No, really. :smallwink:

[Matthew]

I would say he falls, whether he knew the person was responsible for genocide on a mass scale or not. The appropriate action upon recognising a war criminal within the bounds of a town is to arrest him and to emply only as much force as is necessary to prevent him from harming anybody during the arrest (which may result in the use of deadly force).

[arnoldrew]

----------------------
Refuse the Half-Orc Paladin

Refuse was an ugly Half-Orc who grew up on the streets. He stole when he was younger, but also stood up for weaker urchins. When he grew up, he renounced the mistakes of his past, but embraced the actions he did well. He joined the local paladin order.

Refuse had just used one of his Cure Disease abilities to heal a begger in the poor part of town. He needed to relax so he went to the local bar and ordered a big jug of prune juice.

Then he saw a cute little paladin attack and strike down the local painter Adolf with a sword. He struck down the cute little paladin, and beat him to unconciousness. He used lay on hands to heal Adolf the painter.

Refuse let Adolf Hitler go with his apologies. He took the cute little paladin back to the order for questioning.

Was Refuse right in his actions?

I love Half-Orc Paladins.

[ArmorArmadillo]

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ADOLF HITLER!!!!

No we are not: We're talking about a guy who detected evil. This is no different than saying "If I shoot an automatic weapon randomly into a crowd of people, and the only person who gets killed happens to be a murderer, is that an evil act?"

Yes! For a multitude of reasons.
1. Paladin makes himself judge, jury, and executioner without knowing the crime or any context behind it.

2. Paladin takes the highest punishment, murder, without any knowledge of what the crime was.

3. The paladin makes no considerations of any type that he could possibly be wrong or have any reason not to immediately kill this guy.

4. The only possible justification for what he could do is something he doesn't know!

Breaking it down: The "Action" the paladin undertook was killing someone because they detected as evil. Who that person turns out to be is irrelevant.

[estradling]

I'm going to also go against the flow here and also say he doesn't fall...


My reason is simple... The little paladin got lucky... His detect and smite attitude's is risky for the reasons others have listed... However we only have one case of that attitude and it in that case it was right...

If I was DMing the little paladin would get a stern warning that his methods where out of line, and then I would make sure there was an innocent person that for some reason detected evil that the paladin would run into a short while later.

Thus the paladin would have a chance to learn from his mistake and his fall, if it happened, would be a direct undeniable rejection of his instructions.

[Swordguy]

IIRC, the defeat of evil is an inherently good act...in D&D. You can moralize about the real world all you'd like, but that doesn't make it applicable to the game.

If it detects evil, the paladin can do whatever he want to and feels appropriate to "defeat" it.

Illegal? Maybe, depending on laws. So it may not be a lawful act, but it is a good act, by the definitions given to us RAW.

[Krellen]

IIRC, the defeat of evil is an inherently good act...in D&D.
You recall incorrectly. I've quoted it earlier in this thread, but I'll do so again:

Good protects innocent life. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil) "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

Killing an evil being who isn't doing anything to endanger innocents - drinking milk in this bar, in this example - isn't good, because it is not protecting innocent life, nor it is showing a respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. It might be argued to be Neutral, but nowhere in the rules is it even implied that "the defeat of evil is inherently good".

Again, this thought simply cannot be true - and the Blood War is the evidence that it is not.

[Droodle]

Yes, it does.No. No. No. No, it doesn't. Evil characters (almost) always act in their own best interest without regard to who they hurt, sure. Most evil people (roughly a third of the population), however, are never actually going to be in a situation where murder, or any other crime for that matter, is actually in their own best interest. You see, when you violate someone else's rights (break the law), the authorities will punish you for it. Getting punished for murder, theft, shaving coins, falsely accusing someone of a crime, bribing a lawman, etc is not really in anyone's best interest. Fear of reprisal is sufficient to cause most evil aligned people within a civilized society to toe the line....especially since there are so many legal ways to look out for number one. Since most people who are evil are not actually criminals (due to fear of reprisal, lack of motivation, desire to maintain a veneer of respectability, etc), it stands to reason that most people who are evil haven't actually done anything bad enough to justify killing them.

[levi]

As a small aside before I jump into the main point of this thread, a serial jaywalker is Neutral or Chaotic, not Evil. As are a lot of the other acts described as minor Evil deeds.

Whether the guy turns out to be a BBEG or not is irrelevant. The little Paladin's only reason for killing him is that the detected as evil. There are two things wrong with this. Firstly, pinging a detect evil spell or ability doesn't mean that you neccessarily are Evil. Secondly, the immediate, unprovoked use of deadly force is neither Honorable, Lawful, or Good.

For the first point, there are a number of things that can make beings who are not truely Evil detect as such. Being Undead*, halving the [Evil] subtype, or being a Cleric of an Evil Deity all make you register as Evil, even if your alignment is something else. Being possed by an Evil being may also do so. Depending on how the DM adjudicates the spell, the paladin may or may not be able to determin whether you or a magical object on your person is the source of an Evil aura. (It all depends on how precise the "position" information given in round three is.) Finally, coerced alignment changes, such as that caused by a helm of opposite alignment, will actually make the being Evil, but not, neccessarily deserving of punishment for it.

* Funny thing about Undead and the detect [alignment] spells. They ping every single one of them. They all say "as detect evil" and make no mention of Undead, so the same (silly) rules apply. If an Undead even ends up in court for "pinging evil", he can simply have an expert witness cast detect good on him. He he he.

For the second point, I think it's abundantly clear. The DnD definition of Good is objective and defines it as (amoung other things) having
"respect for life". This means that the immediate use of deadly force, possibly for minor Evil deeds or no Evil deeds at all, is clearly not Good.

Killing him in a public tavern is clearly Chaotic. It displays no respect for the tavernkeeper, his patrons, or the rule of law. On the spot executions are not Lawful. The Lawful approch would encompass formal procceedings, proof of guilt (even if detect spells are admissable in court (which they oughtn't be), multiple independant casters should be required) and a formal execution. From a Lawful perspective, deadly force is only justified on the battlefeild, in the immediate defence of oneself or others, during a properly conducted execution, and (possibly) in a duel where use of such force was agreed to by both parties.

Finally, it is Dishonorable to kill someone while they're unarmed at the pub having a drink (milk or otherwise). Even if he was offically "Wanted, Dead or Alive", the dead option in this case is not Honorable. It would proably be best to attempt a quiet arrest. The little Paladin should give him the opportunity to finish his drink, pay his tab, and come "downtown" without making a scene. If he's Lawful, he's likely to cooperate and then (most likely) beat the stuffing out of the pally in court. (Last I checked, "drinking while evil" isn't a crime in any juristiction.)

[tbarrie]

Most evil people (roughly a third of the population), however, are never actually going to be in a situation where murder, or any other crime for that matter, is actually in their own best interest. You see, when you violate someone else's rights (break the law), the authorities will punish you for it. Getting punished for murder, theft, shaving coins, falsely accusing someone of a crime, bribing a lawman, etc is not really in anyone's best interest. Fear of reprisal is sufficient to cause most evil aligned people within a civilized society to toe the line...

Indeed. It's occurred to me that Paladins' ability to detect evil at will is directly tied to the fact that they have to be Lawful Good. They're Lawful because they know that civilization works, that an ordered society with well-thought-out and well-enforced laws is an excellent way to keep evil in check - and they know because they can look out every day and see all the people who are evil by nature, but who aren't out raping and murdering.

(Though I don't think I agree that one third of the population is evil. Doesn't the PHB explicitly state that neutral is the most common alignment for humans? If asked to pull numbers out of thin air, I'd probably say 60% of the population is neutral, with 20% evil and 20% good. Maybe 80/10/10.)

[Fenix_of_Doom]

The man is evil, but that doesn't automatically mean he deserves death.

Response:

Yes, it does.


So a someone who robs a store should be put to death?

If you truly believe that evil persons should be killed and act accordingly, as in killing evil persons yourself, then under the law of many countries you would get a sentence of life long imprisonment or even capital punishment. So I guess you could say there are plenty of people who disagree with you.


And on the assuming that we are speaking about pre-war Hitler part:
I find it unlikely that Hitler would be in a bar without security while he was a dictator, so it isn't much of a strange assumption is it?
edit:

Hypothetical situation:

A drug pusher is standing on a corner - I actively see him dealing the stuff out. Since he's making his living from destroying the lives of others and likely not caring, I'd say it's a safe bet I can peg him as evil. I have a gun.

By your definition, shooting him would be the height of moral and ethical behaviour that a paladin is called to.

I challenge that and call that both chaotic (murder is illegal) and evil (it's cold-blooded murder). I say that the height of moral and ethical behaviour is to perform an arrest and hand him over to the authorities for trial and judgement. A paladin the ultimate cop IMO - acts within the law, respecting the lives of others, and only uses lethal force if necessary to protect the lives of himself and others.

QFT

[Fawsto]

Dudes... I am trully sorry to tell this, I'd rather not, but I will:

1/3 of the people who posted in this thread aren't seeing the point and reason for the Paladin's fall.

This paladin falls for the same reason Miko fell. He believes that all vestiges of evil should be utterly destroyed imediatly. Let's just reaplace the Unknown Pehaps Hitler guy for a the Baby of a Red Dragon or a Demon (if they are to have children). If teh paladin killed it, wouldn't it be evil?

It is the smae situation, take your own conclusions.

Btw, Paladins are indeed hard to roleplay. Their "Aura of Courage" can be their ruin. Why? Because he is IMUNE to fear, magical or not. After 3rd level the Paladin is almost to forget what is fear. Meaning that he never fears if he is making the wrong decision, he is always certain of his rightousness, glory and above all, the efficacy of his "Detect Evil" power. This is his ruin, these are the first steps to his doom. This is the exact situation presented, teh little paladin is so certain of his detection and fearless about it that he comited a evil act and therefore lost his powers.

[Krellen]

(Though I don't think I agree that one third of the population is evil. Doesn't the PHB explicitly state that neutral is the most common alignment for humans?)
Sort of. It actually says "Humans tend towards no particular alignment, not even neutrality." It does, however, rate neutral as the "common" alignment, which would mean there are more humans that are neutral than any other alignment (which means at least 12% of humans are neutral (as in "neutral" - not including lawful or chaotic neutrals); I'd say something in the range of 33% is more likely.)

I would like to correct myself on one thing: the merchant selling shoddy goods isn't evil unless the shoddiness is likely to endanger lives. Like good being more than merely opposing evil, evil is more than mere selfishness. Evil debases or destroys innocent life, whether for fun or profit. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil) Selling tainted food - that will make people sick and shorten their lifespans - probably still qualifies, but selling a balsa-wood chair probably doesn't (unless of course you do it for no other reason than getting to laugh at people as they crush chairs, because I think that'd qualify as "debasing".)

But there are still a whole range of things that ping one as evil that still don't justify death - the aforementioned selling of tainted goods, supporting destructive policies for personal profit, getting a kick out of public humiliation, just as a few examples.

We still come down to this: the thought that good is good because it opposes evil is just flat out wrong, completely unsupported by the RAW and the flavour and canon of the base setting, and is something that needs to be excised from the minds of gamers. Good requires more than simply the destruction and opposition of evil (once again, see the example of St. Cuthbert.)

[Matthew]

Btw, Paladins are indeed hard to roleplay. Their "Aura of Courage" can be their ruin. Why? Because he is IMUNE to fear, magical or not. After 3rd level the Paladin is almost to forget what is fear. Meaning that he never fears if he is making the wrong decision, he is always certain of his rightousness, glory and above all, the efficacy of his "Detect Evil" power. This is his ruin, these are the first steps to his doom. This is the exact situation presented, teh little paladin is so certain of his detection and fearless about it that he comited a evil act and therefore lost his powers.

Not this again. He is not immune to Fear in the general sense, he is immune to the game condition Fear. The two are different.

[Mike_G]

One important point about this scenario, where most posters have come down on the side that summary killing is at least overly harsh, if not outright evil, and the reconciliation of killing in D&D- which is fairly common- with Good conduct is the difference in Rules of Engagement.

Out in the field, in a dungeon, in the Castle of the Dread Necromancer, the Rules of Engagement can be seen as typical wartime morality. We're Team Good, the other guy is Team Evil.

Now in active wartime on patrol, if our hero spots an armed man in the wrong uniform, he is justified, if not encouraged, to shoot him. If the man drops his weapon, throws his hands up and surrenders, then our hero should stop shooting at him. This is all perfectly appropriate conduct in wartime.

In a city, at a bar where both men have come for a drink, we need to look at peacetime Rules of Engagement. If our hero is a policeman, or PI or just a general Do-Gooder and spots a young man outside the Hancock Projects wearing baggy jeans, sideways ball cap, prison tattoos and the Black and Gold colors of the Latin Kings gang, he is in no way justified in simply shooting the man. He should be suspicious, he should maybe investigate, and yes, the guy is more likely to be an armed drug dealer than a Jehova's Witness out delivering pamphlets, but you can't just kill people on suspicion, or society crumbles.

It's the same in D&D. If you are skulking through an ancient tomb, with no courts or backup or jails or City Watch to call, and you see a band of orcs, and they ping Evil, you can probably get away with ambushing them. Shanking a guy at a bar is just not an appropriate reaction.

Detect Evil should prompt the vertically challenged Paladin to investigate, call the city watch, maybe even speak to the guy in the moustache and get a sense for what his crimes are, if in fact he's committed any yet. If necessary, he can easily have the many arrested, tried and jailed.

Even in the case of RL Nazis, the men who tracked them down, like Simon Wiesenthal, often having spent time in the camps, didn't simply gun them down, but returned them to justice for trial.

If I were at the bar, and recognized Hitler (unlikley for lots of reasons, but no less likely than Paladin running into him) I'd subdue and arrest him and haul him to the Police, so that he can be processed and returned to stand trial and then hang.

If I met him out in the woods, with no means to safely ensure that I could bring him in and he wouldn't escape or turn on me and kill me, I'd drop him right there.

And I make absolutely no claim to being as holy as a Paladin, having served in the Fighting Uruk Hai,-- er... Marines.

But Sgt Nichols really did remind me of Ugluk.

[Snooder]

This paladin falls for the same reason Miko fell.


Not really. Miko fell because she DIDN'T detect evil. If she had, she would have known that Shojo wasn't evil. But she started to place to much faith in her personal abilities and rationalize away her actions.


I'm going to sum up the points of agreement and disagreement I see in this argument.

A.) Killing the guy isn't the best action the Paladin could take, we can all agree on that.
B.) Killing the guy is not a "good" action.

Disagreement:
a.) killing the guy is evil.
I think I earlier proved why killing someone who is evil is not, in and of itself, an evil action. It's not the highest example of a "good" action, but it's no worse than neutral.

The problem seems to be that people are ascribing evil to petty criminals and such. They aren't. Someone who occasionally commits evil, and also occasionally commits good is neutral. To be evil, a human has to consistently commit evil and very, very rarely act in a good fashion. I think we can all agree that a person like that deserves death. Alignment isn't just an arbitrary part of someone's nature. You can't have evil people who don't commit evil actions, that's not how evil works. Heck, after a very short while, they'd probably suffer an alignment change.

Granted, depending on the current laws of the area, the Paladin would probably have to undergo a trial and face LEGAL consequences. However, he would not fall because he has not committed an evil act. Nor really has he violated his Code of Conduct because he could argue that any civilian authority that allows evil to exist is not a legitimate authority.



A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities


Remember, we are not talking about the real world. In the real world, we don't have divine sources of finding out if someone is evil. We also don't have raise dead. Actions that would be beyond the pale in real life, like attacking a band of orcs and slaughtering them, is entirely justified and "good" in D&D.

[Droodle]

Btw, Paladins are indeed hard to roleplay. Their "Aura of Courage" can be their ruin. Why? Because he is IMMUNE to fear, magical or not. After 3rd level the Paladin is almost to forget what is fear. Meaning that he never fears if he is making the wrong decision, he is always certain of his rightousness, glory and above all, the efficacy of his "Detect Evil" power. This is his ruin, these are the first steps to his doom. This is the exact situation presented, teh little paladin is so certain of his detection and fearless about it that he comited a evil act and therefore lost his powers.I disagree. Immunity to fear and immunity to common sense are not the same thing. Immunity to fear and arrogance are not the same thing either. Prideful, arrogant Paladins inevitably fall. Regarding "Detect Evil", having unflagging faith in the results of the spell is not a problem....since being evil isn't actually a crime. Unless you've introduced a houserule that all evil characters are already guilty of some sort of capital crime and that they can never be redeemed, killing someone just because they popped evil when you scanned the room is poor roleplaying. When a Paladin detects that someone is evil, he is perfectly justified to distrust the person. Further, investigating the person wouldn't be uncalled for, either, but if a Paladin investigated every person that popped evil, he'd just be wasting his time (since being evil isn't actually a crime and most evil people are just shamelessly self-centered....not criminals).

[Matthew]

Granted, depending on the current laws of the area, the Paladin would probably have to undergo a trial and face LEGAL consequences. However, he would not fall because he has not committed an evil act. Nor really has he violated his Code of Conduct because he could argue that any civilian authority that allows evil to exist is not a legitimate authority.

Hardly. Paladins cannot argue jack. It's not a legal case, it's black and white. Is it honourable to kill some guy in a bar without issuing a formal challenge of some kind? Hell no. If you think Paladins can rules lawyer their way around the code, you have missed the point of being a Paladin.

[Snooder]

If you think Paladins can rules lawyer their way around the code, you have missed the point of being a Paladin.

Not rules lawyering around it. Just saying that the Paladin's code allows some leeway, and this is one of those instances. Pally A could take the stance that he must follow ALL civilian authority and Pally B could say that a civilian authority that is not good is not legitimate. Both would be correct, and neither would be breaking the code of conduct.

[Droodle]

I think I earlier proved why killing someone who is evil is not, in and of itself, an evil action. It's not the highest example of a "good" action, but it's no worse than neutral.
Proved it to yourself, maybe. Killing someone without provocation is evil. That's why we call it murder. Simply being evil aligned does not qualify as provocation.

When a Paladin detects someone as evil, he's supposed to do something like this: (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041115a)
(relevant portion quoted below)


"Why do you hurt your fellow citizens?"
The innkeeper froze. "What?"
"I can see the greed swirling in your soul," Handor said. "Do you water down your ale? Charge three crowns when the price is two? Or worse?"
"I don't know what you're talking about," the man stammered. His eyes flickered down to Handor's blade.
"I am a paladin of the Silver Flame. I am sworn to fight evil in all its forms. My sword is for the fiends and monsters that deserve neither reason nor mercy. But you are no monster, and you can still find redemption." Handor put his hand on the hosteller's shoulder. "Consider your actions. Think about those you have harmed. Seek out a minister and cleanse your soul. The true darkness is rising, and if we are to survive we must all find a path to the light. If you cannot . . . then perhaps you are a monster, after all."You'll notice that the Paladin didn't assume the man was a murderer, and didn't kill him for pinging evil.


Not rules lawyering around it. Just saying that the Paladin's code allows some leeway, and this is one of those instances. Pally A could take the stance that he must follow ALL civilian authority and Pally B could say that a civilian authority that is not good is not legitimate. Both would be correct, and neither would be breaking the code of conduct.Can you explain to me exactly why a Paladin would determine that a law against murdering a defenseless old man without provocation is illegitimate? From where I'm standing, laws don't really get any more "legitimate" than that.

[Matthew]

Not rules lawyering around it. Just saying that the Paladin's code allows some leeway, and this is one of those instances. Pally A could take the stance that he must follow ALL civilian authority and Pally B could say that a civilian authority that is not good is not legitimate. Both would be correct, and neither would be breaking the code of conduct.

No, the letter of the code allows some leeway, the spirit of the code is perfectly obvious and it does not include cold blooded murder, which is tantamount to assassination, a career choice defined as none good in D&D.

[Citizen Joe]

Then the innkeeper sighs in relief and lets go of 'Persuader' the spiked club he keeps under the counter, still soaked in the blood of the last evil creature that threatened his inn.

[Snooder]

Proved it to yourself, maybe. Killing someone without provocation is evil.


No, killing someone innocent is evil.



Can you explain to me exactly why a Paladin would determine that a law against murdering a defenseless old man without provocation is illegitimate? From where I'm standing, laws don't really get any more "legitimate" than that.

The law would be illegitimate in the same way that a law that allows child molesters to go free would be illegitimate. We are not talking about just some random person. We are talking about an evil random person. Evil by its definition is that which hurts the innocent, so allowing those who hurt the innocent to walk around can be construed as tantamount to sanctioning their actions. Death is harsh way of dealing with this, but again, not necessarily an evil way of dealing with it.

My point is not that Little Paladin SHOULD kill the guy. My point is that he wouldn't fall just for doing so.

[Matthew]

I think the crux of this is the question, is it honourable to commit murder in the way described? If it can be defined as honourable, there is no problem. I do not think it can be described as such.

The second question is, if it is not honourable, will this trigger a fall as a gross violation of his code of conduct? In my opinion, it doesn't have to as an absolute consequence, but it is sufficient grounds for him to fall.

[Snooder]

No, the letter of the code allows some leeway, the spirit of the code is perfectly obvious and it does not include cold blooded murder, which is tantamount to assassination, a career choice defined as none good in D&D.

Actually, I'd say this sort of thing is exactly what the spirit intended. Not so much that Paladins should go around killing people, but that if faced with a law that the Paladin could not in good conscience follow, he does not have to.

Btw, by your definition, a Paladin who hunts down a tyrant king is an assassin and should instantly fall. Regicide is a crime just about everywhere and the Paladin plans and deliberates on killing him (the very definition of cold-blooded murder).

[Snooder]

I think the crux of this is the question, is it honourable to commit murder in the way described? If it can be defined as honourable, there is no problem. I do not think it can be described as such.

The second question is, if it is not honourable, will this trigger a fall as a gross violation of his code of conduct? In my opinion, it doesn't have to as an absolute consequence, but it is sufficient grounds for him to fall.

Honor isn't a factor in this case. The Paladin didn't sneak around and stab the guy in the back, or ambush him later. He was honest and open in his actions, entirely honorable in fact.

[Matthew]

Actually, I'd say this sort of thing is exactly what the spirit intended. Not so much that Paladins should go around killing people, but that if faced with a law that the Paladin could not in good conscience follow, he does not have to.

If you feel this is spiritually in line with the concept of the Paladin, there's not much I can say beyond I do not agree.


Btw, by your definition, a Paladin who hunts down a tyrant king is an assassin and should instantly fall. Regicide is a crime just about everywhere and the Paladin plans and deliberates on killing him (the very definition of cold-blooded murder).

In my opinion, assassination is not permissable, nor a necessary means of ending the reign of a tyrannical King.


Honor isn't a factor in this case. The Paladin didn't sneak around and stab the guy in the back, or ambush him later. He was honest and open in his actions, entirely honorable in fact.

Ridiculous. Honour, under just about any definition, would at least demand a decleration of intention and the opportunity for the accused to defend himself.

[Snooder]

In my opinion, assassination is not permissable, nor a necessary means of ending the reign of a tyrannical King.


Imagine this scenario, we have a Paladin. He is the long lost son of a king. The king's Vizier has killed the rightful king and all his issue. Then the Prime Minister took over, possibly in a rigged election. The country is now plunged into chaos and tyranny. Paladin decides to save his countrymen from the evil reign of Vizier. He gathers a band of friends and rides to the Castle. He fights his way to the throne room, and there he slays the Vizier. By your logic, that Paladin is an assassin and instantly falls. Do you see the problem with this?



Ridiculous. Honour, under just about any definition, would at least demand a decleration of intention and the opportunity for the accused to defend himself.

He did declare his intent. He walked right up and told the guy exactly what he was going to do.

[Matthew]

Imagine this scenario, we have a Paladin. He is the long lost son of a king. The king's Vizier has killed the rightful king and all his issue. Then the Prime Minister took over, possibly in a rigged election. The country is now plunged into chaos and tyranny. Paladin decides to save his countrymen from the evil reign of Vizier. He gathers a band of friends and rides to the Castle. He fights his way to the throne room, and there he slays the Vizier. By your logic, that Paladin is an assassin and instantly falls. Do you see the problem with this?

I see no problem with this if he actually engages the Vizier in combat. If he slays him whilst he is unarmed and incapable of offering defence, it is not a legitimate action, because he can be taken prisoner. A trial follows and the appropriate punishment is meted out. This is not 'by my logic', it's completely normal within the bounds of fantasy fiction.
Watch just about any episode of Hercules to see an extreme application of the Paladin ethos in action.


He did declare his intent. He walked right up and told the guy exactly what he was going to do.

Yes, he said, "I am going to kill you" and then he did. Not the same thing as 'calling someone out', which is the very core of honourable codes of conduct in this sort of situation.

Honestly, if you think it is legitimate for a Paladin to simply slip his blade between the ribs of a man who is at his mercy and he believes to be Evil Aligned, I stand no chance of convincing you otherwise.

[calebcom]

Lets take hitler out of said senario for one.

Paladin walks into a bar, detects evil. The barkeep shows up as evil. Paladin kills barkeep.



barkeep has never committed an evil act. However he's highly selfish, and constantly entertains thoughts of murder and torture. He delights in the ideas of these things. However he has never done any of them. He would if he could but he hasn't.




The paladin falls. Just because it's evil doesn't give you the right to kill it until it actually does something wrong.


a red dragon who only hunts what it needs and aquires it's treasures through means not harming anyone is seen by a local populace.


Populace gets group of adventurers to hunt dragon down.

Paladin falls. He killed a harmless creature who has committed no wrong only because it's scales are red. Same thing as killing because of an evil aura.

[Murderous Hobo]

Aside from magical manipulation, how and why would anybody who has not committed enough acts to have his alignment shift to evil, show up as evil?

[Citizen Joe]

OK, Paladin cracks open an egg for breakfast and eats it... he just killed an innocent...

[calebcom]

A man who casts alot of animate dead which i believe are (Evil) descriptor to create skeletons for menial labor would probably pop up dead.

He buys the cadavers and never hurts anyone, but he casts an "Evil" spell alot, shifting him artificially to evil.

[Inyssius Tor]

By "magical manipulation", you mean something akin to this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html)? Well... you could be undead, or a neutral cleric of an evil deity, or an outsider with the [Evil] subtype.

[calebcom]

OK, Paladin cracks open an egg for breakfast and eats it... he just killed an innocent...

The egg is unfertalized and therefore not an innocent. It's a mass of proteins and carbohydrates.

[Citizen Joe]

Aside from magical manipulation, how and why would anybody who has not committed enough acts to have his alignment shift to evil, show up as evil?
He could actively hunt down evil/non-innocent people and kill them for sport.

[Inyssius Tor]

He buys the cadavers and never hurts anyone, but he casts an "Evil" spell alot, shifting him artificially to evil.

That's pretty much exactly "committing enough acts to shift your alignment to evil," you know. Besides, animating the dead may well be an Evil act in your world; hell, it's the default! It has the Evil descriptor, so it's freaking evil!


He could actively hunt down evil/non-innocent people and kill them for sport.

That's pretty much exactly "committing enough acts to shift your alignment to evil," you know. Besides, --did you even read the post you quoted?

[calebcom]

He animates dead, and it's evil. but has he actually done anything wrong? Has he harmed anyone?


The point i'm trying to make is that being evil is not enough to kill someone.

Heck he could be using the skeletons to farm up food to help people, but the incessant spellcasting of animate undead being enough to keep him registering as evil. If little paladin even bothers checking his evil with him in a field full of undead.

[Citizen Joe]

That's pretty much exactly "committing enough acts to shift your alignment to evil," you know. Besides, --did you even read the post you quoted?
He might be evil, but he never harmed innocents. Which is the point of the paladin code.

[Inyssius Tor]

Depending on your campaign world, he may well have. From perverting the natural order of things (which is the default), to crippling and enslaving the souls of the dead.

[calebcom]

Depending on your campaign world, he may well have. From perverting the natural order of things (which is the default), to crippling and enslaving the souls of the dead.

I said the bodies were aquired legally via purchase from family. and being subject of an animate dead spell does not preclude the idea of a resurrection spell, and as a mindless undead I don't belive it has a soul attached to it.







Here's another example. A balor gets onto the material plane and decides to become a farmer for whatever reason. It is always evil no matter what, but it sits around growing corn, does it deserve to die?

[Inyssius Tor]

We're steering off-topic, but:

First off, the cadaver's family is unlikely to have spoken recently with the deceased person's soul; second, I specifically emphasized that that part was not RAW-standard (though having it pervert the natural order of things is).

[calebcom]

We're steering off-topic, but:

First off, the cadaver's family is unlikely to have spoken recently with the deceased person's soul; second, I specifically emphasized that that part was not RAW-standard (though having it pervert the natural order of things is).

The animate dead spell mentions NOTHING about the persons soul being anywhere in the undead. or tortured in the least.

I admitted to it being evil, but is it worth this persons death when all he wants to do is use undead to mass produce foodstuff to help people and his solution to making it cheap is using undead?


Edit: we're entirely on topic in that we're discussing whether someone deserves to die for merely coming up as evil on a detect evil spell.

[Inyssius Tor]

You're entirely right. It doesn't say anything about that in the spell description. For the third time, that part = not RAW.

EDIT: This little mini-discussion would be an object lesson to those people who say "Why do you all talk about the RAW so much, anyway?", except that I marked that part of my post as not-RAW when I wrote it. "Depending on your campaign world" seems like a clear enough indication that Your Mileage is very likely to Vary.

[Murderous Hobo]

By "magical manipulation", you mean something akin to this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html)? Well... you could be undead, or a neutral cleric of an evil deity, or an outsider with the [Evil] subtype.

Yup. Though I was thinking of the Helm of Opposite Alignment.

I asked the qeustion because the whole debate seemed to revolve around supposedly innocent people who showed up as evil. However (barring magical intervention) it seems to me that you can't be innocent and have your alignment at evil because the latter implies you've done something to warrant this.


Here's another example. A balor gets onto the material plane and decides to become a farmer for whatever reason. It is always evil no matter what, but it sits around growing corn, does it deserve to die?

This is going the way of Terry Pratchet's Ank-Mopork. :smallbiggrin:

It'd be horrible out of character for a Balor to become a farmer, but if he does his alignment would probebly shift, or he'd be a compulsively evil farmer.

[Citizen Joe]

Situation:
As part of a job interview, you're given a gun and told that the man in the next room is evil.

What do you do?

[calebcom]

Yup. Though I was thinking of the Helm of Opposite Alignment.

I asked the qeustion because the whole debate seemed to revolve around supposedly innocent people who showed up as evil. However (barring magical intervention) it seems to me that you can't be innocent and have your alignment at evil because the latter implies you've done something to warrant this.



This is going the way of Terry Pratchet's Ank-Mopork. :smallbiggrin:

It'd be horrible out of character for a Balor to become a farmer, but if he does his alignment would probebly shift, or he'd be a compulsively evil farmer.

Yes he's committing an evil act, but IS IT WRONG? Is he actually HARMING ANYONE?

No. He's not harming ANYONE. He's actually HELPING people.


And yes the Balor would be out of character. And would little paladin stop to check if the balor in the farm field was evil or not?

[Inyssius Tor]

Situation:
As part of a job interview, you're given a gun and told that the man in the next room is evil.

What do you do?
Not an accurate comparison, I'm sorry to say. Detect evil isn't even your god telling you that the man is evil. It would be more closely approximated as the universe telling you that the man is evil.

[calebcom]

no, it's a fallible energy telling you that he's evil. Hence why alignment can be hidden.

[EagleWiz]

And yes the Balor would be out of character. And would little paladin stop to check if the balor in the farm field was evil or not?

No. The Little Paladin would run to somewhere far away.

[calebcom]

No. The Little Paladin would run to somewhere far away.

But if the balor is a peaceful farmer, there's no need to run.

[Citizen Joe]

I asked the question because the whole debate seemed to revolve around supposedly innocent people who showed up as evil. However (barring magical intervention) it seems to me that you can't be innocent and have your alignment at evil because the latter implies you've done something to warrant this.


But you can be evil without harming innocents (vigilante). You can also harm innocents without being evil (animals). The paladin code dictates that you punish those that have harmed innocents. Thus detecting evil is a wholy unreliable means of detecting innocent harmers. Also, detect evil only points at the location of the evil, not the actual creature. Also evil auras can linger, again giving you a false positive.

[Murderous Hobo]

Yes he's committing an evil act, but IS IT WRONG? Is he actually HARMING ANYONE?

No. He's not harming ANYONE. He's actually HELPING people.


Morality is the will of god, god is perfect and good so god is right. Evil goes against the will of god and is thus always wrong.

So by extension, ridding the world of evil is always good.

Or what I understand of theology 101. Not my personal cup of tea.


no, it's a fallible energy telling you that he's evil. Hence why alignment can be hidden.

So what it really comes down to is that it really has nothing to do with morality at all and shouldn't be considered as such.

[Citizen Joe]

Actually, killing an outsider is never evil since it just sends them back to their home plane.

[EagleWiz]

The paladin wouldnt know that.
And he would have fell.
Attacking someone who detects as Evil is not paladin like.
If he knew it was Hitler then sure thats fine but all the little paladin knew was: He showed up as evil.

And if killing evil is always good
And killing good is always evil
Killing Neutral is always Neutral
So thus killing everyone you see is usualy neutral.
So the psycotic-mass murderer is neutral.
Right?

Note: No I do not think that is right. That is just wrong.

[estradling]

Given that the original poster is having us stand in for the DM in question and thus be the final answer on what is good and evil... Therefore I must confess that Hitler would be on my ok to kill list, just like most balors, liches, demons, and devils...

I could go into details on why he is but that would run against form rules... So feel free to disagree... I'm not going to defend it... It is simply how I call it.


Given the above that just leaves the method the paladin used left open... And that is questionable and more then a bit dangerous. The little paladin did nothing to confirm his detect evil... In the heat of battle this might be ok... but given the problems with detect evil that many other people have talked about, it not enough to kill without some other clear and present danger. I consider this chaotic and dangerous at best, but only evil depending on who was killed.

Thus my position that the little paladin does not fall from this act alone... If this continues like this then yes he could very well fall. And if he screws up and kills someone not on the 'list' as it where, then also yes he falls, but not until then.

[puppyavenger]

Falls to layer 667 of the abyss, for the extra reason that for all the little paladin knows a polymorphed pit feind was discussing a truce with a trio of great wyrm chromatic dragons, a lich and a high preist of Set in that corner a few minutes ago.

and there's already a 10 page debate of the morality of animate dead, see CG dread Necromancer.

[Stephen_E]

A number of issues in this thread.

Innocence/innocent: Sinless, not guilty - either of a specific crime or in general, unknowing - through lack of experiance or lack of capacity, often connected with youth.

The assumption has been made that "Evil" people can't be innocent. In all but the most all encompassing generic use (which basically eliminates all but newborns, and even they're debatable under some philosophies) they can't. In most common specific usages of the term, yes they can.

Example: In war most people consider civilians to be innocents. Civilains are human and a mixture of good, neutral and evil in their everyday lives, but unless they've actively involved themselves in the war they're innocent (something Mike G alluded to previously).

------------------
Detect Evil = undeniable EVIL!.
Detect Evil is an ability/spell that detects a type of energy. It is not an infalliable of even particuly accurate method of detecting a creature moral philosophy or alignment.
Detecting as evil does not mean one is evil.

---------------------
Outsider of the Evil Subtype always detect as "EVIL".
If they become "good" they still detect as "EVIL" but will also detect as "good".

----------------------------
"Killing outsider isn't really evil because they don't actually die".

If you kill an Outsider it will return to it's plane. If it's already on its native plane it dies. Some Outsiders are native to the various game worlds, so if you kill them on those worlds they die.
If you "kill" a outsider so that it goes back to it own plane you're still probably subjecting it to considerable pain. Thus if there is no particular reason for "evicting" then you're effectively committing torture. If the outsider is of "evil" subtype but of good alignment, then you're sending them back to a plane where they will almost certainly be tortured and murdered. If you can define handing over a good person to be tortured and murdered simply because they have the wrong "skin colour" as a good act I see no point in debating alignment with you. We clearly have no common ground.

----------------------
The philosophy of "Killing evil is good".

This is an interesting one IMO. In part because people like to say RL and DnD morality don't connect, yet this is a RL philosophy/POV that has always been popular amongst some in DnD. As far as I can see the modern version (last several centuries) of this philosophy has evolved from the excuse for political actions. It's sort of a reverse of the process that commonly occurs in Churches (I use the term "church" as the organisation that surrounds a religion, as opposed to the religion itself) where people gain political power in support of their religion and then the gain of political power becomes an end in itself.

What we have is a political aim to kill other for power. To justify this the philosophy "killing evil is good" is promoted (with no actual sincerity) becaue then you simply label others as "evil" and you have a perfect excuse to kill your enemies. Indeed you become almost obliged to kill them, and become a good person through doing so. While quite clearly coming from a purely political excuse background it has developed into a po[ular pholosophy in itself and has looped back to support political movements AND DnD alignment debates.

Part of the problem within DnD is that while the general rules don't support this view (indeed it is dubious whether they ever have despite DnD be much kinder than RL philosophy on killing) it does make roleplaying "Heroes" much easier and you inevitably get designers who follow this philosophy and produce things such as the Gray Guard.

Personally I have no problems playing "evil" or "neutral" characters, but I'm aware that there are people who don't like playing such characters, and basically using this philosophy you can play characters that many would consider "evil" but still think of yourself as "good". Meh, it's only a problem if we're palying in the same game. In debates it simply comes down to "inreconciable differences".
----------------------

In response to the OP. The Paladin has just done an evil act and falls. The person he murdered been Hitler is irrelevant because he didn't know this. Intent is an intergral part of alignment in DnD. If you read the alignment descriptions it should be fairly obvious that they are a flat list of "acts" but involve a mix of reasons, intents and results.

Indeed as far as the cute Paladin knew Hitler (pre or post war) was an innocent.

The Half-Orc Paladin on the otherhand recognised the Paladin wasn't innocent (he'd just laid into aa apparently harmless man for no reason other than he'd detected as "evil" with a falliable ability) and he healed Hitler because whatever his previous or future crimes that he may do or have done, he was at that time innocent of doing anything. Guilt requires knowledge in the part of the observor (the paladin) as well as action and/or knowledge on the part of the guilty (there is a big can of worms regarding people who act but without the capacity of knowing they were wrong).

If you claim that the cute paladin was justified in killing Hitler because he beleived Hitler was evil, or because Hitler had done evil acts, despite the Paladin not knowing about them, and thus his act isn't "evil", then you justify someone claiming Hitler wasn't "evil" because he sincerely beleived that the Jews were evil, and you can pretty much guarantee that many, in fact probably all of them, had at some time done an "evil" act of some sort. They were all human after all. Who hasn't, at sometime, done an act that can be defined as "evil" (remember in DnD selfish=evil).

Stephen

[calebcom]

A number of issues in this thread.

Innocence/innocent: Sinless, not guilty - either of a specific crime or in general, unknowing - through lack of experiance or lack of capacity, often connected with youth.

The assumption has been made that "Evil" people can't be innocent. In all but the most all encompassing generic use (which basically eliminates all but newborns, and even they're debatable under some philosophies) they can't. In most common specific usages of the term, yes they can.

Example: In war most people consider civilians to be innocents. Civilains are human and a mixture of good, neutral and evil in their everyday lives, but unless they've actively involved themselves in the war they're innocent (something Mike G alluded to previously).

------------------
Detect Evil = undeniable EVIL!.
Detect Evil is an ability/spell that detects a type of energy. It is not an infalliable of even particuly accurate method of detecting a creature moral philosophy or alignment.
Detecting as evil does not mean one is evil.

---------------------
Outsider of the Evil Subtype always detect as "EVIL".
If they become "good" they still detect as "EVIL" but will also detect as "good".

----------------------------
"Killing outsider isn't really evil because they don't actually die".

If you kill an Outsider it will return to it's plane. If it's already on its native plane it dies. Some Outsiders are native to the various game worlds, so if you kill them on those worlds they die.
If you "kill" a outsider so that it goes back to it own plane you're still probably subjecting it to considerable pain. Thus if there is no particular reason for "evicting" then you're effectively committing torture. If the outsider is of "evil" subtype but of good alignment, then you're sending them back to a plane where they will almost certainly be tortured and murdered. If you can define handing over a good person to be tortured and murdered simply because they have the wrong "skin colour" as a good act I see no point in debating alignment with you. We clearly have no common ground.

----------------------
The philosophy of "Killing evil is good".

This is an interesting one IMO. In part because people like to say RL and DnD morality don't connect, yet this is a RL philosophy/POV that has always been popular amongst some in DnD. As far as I can see the modern version (last several centuries) of this philosophy has evolved from the excuse for political actions. It's sort of a reverse of the process that commonly occurs in Churches (I use the term "church" as the organisation that surrounds a religion, as opposed to the religion itself) where people gain political power in support of their religion and then the gain of political power becomes an end in itself.

What we have is a political aim to kill other for power. To justify this the philosophy "killing evil is good" is promoted (with no actual sincerity) becaue then you simply label others as "evil" and you have a perfect excuse to kill your enemies. Indeed you become almost obliged to kill them, and become a good person through doing so. While quite clearly coming from a purely political excuse background it has developed into a po[ular pholosophy in itself and has looped back to support political movements AND DnD alignment debates.

Part of the problem within DnD is that while the general rules don't support this view (indeed it is dubious whether they ever have despite DnD be much kinder than RL philosophy on killing) it does make roleplaying "Heroes" much easier and you inevitably get designers who follow this philosophy and produce things such as the Gray Guard.

Personally I have no problems playing "evil" or "neutral" characters, but I'm aware that there are people who don't like playing such characters, and basically using this philosophy you can play characters that many would consider "evil" but still think of yourself as "good". Meh, it's only a problem if we're palying in the same game. In debates it simply comes down to "inreconciable differences".
----------------------

In response to the OP. The Paladin has just done an evil act and falls. The person he murdered been Hitler is irrelevant because he didn't know this. Intent is an intergral part of alignment in DnD. If you read the alignment descriptions it should be fairly obvious that they are a flat list of "acts" but involve a mix of reasons, intents and results.

Indeed as far as the cute Paladin knew Hitler (pre or post war) was an innocent.

The Half-Orc Paladin on the otherhand recognised the Paladin wasn't innocent (he'd just laid into aa apparently harmless man for no reason other than he'd detected as "evil" with a falliable ability) and he healed Hitler because whatever his previous or future crimes that he may do or have done, he was at that time innocent of doing anything. Guilt requires knowledge in the part of the observor (the paladin) as well as action and/or knowledge on the part of the guilty (there is a big can of worms regarding people who act but without the capacity of knowing they were wrong).

If you claim that the cute paladin was justified in killing Hitler because he beleived Hitler was evil, or because Hitler had done evil acts, despite the Paladin not knowing about them, and thus his act isn't "evil", then you justify someone claiming Hitler wasn't "evil" because he sincerely beleived that the Jews were evil, and you can pretty much guarantee that many, in fact probably all of them, had at some time done an "evil" act of some sort. They were all human after all. Who hasn't, at sometime, done an act that can be defined as "evil" (remember in DnD selfish=evil).

Stephen

Thank you for putting it so well.


Unless you know they're guilty of something, it is evil to kill them. The mere fact that they are evil does not justify death.

[Droodle]

No, killing someone innocent Really? Why don't you show me where it says that in the SRD.


The law would be illegitimate in the same way that a law that allows child molesters to go free would be illegitimate. We are not talking about just some random person. We are talking about an evil random person. Evil by its definition is that which hurts the innocent, so allowing those who hurt the innocent to walk around can be construed as tantamount to sanctioning their actions. Death is harsh way of dealing with this, but again, not necessarily an evil way of dealing with it.My friend, "hurt" and "injure" are not the same thing. Though evil persons do not care if others are hurt by their actions, this is not tosay that they go out of their way to do so. A law abiding evil person in a civilized society is unlikely to break any major laws out of fear of reprisal or lack of training.


Aside from magical manipulation, how and why would anybody who has not committed enough acts to have his alignment shift to evil, show up as evil?Fear of legal reprisal stops him from committing crimes. Maybe he wants to be a thief, but lacks the training. Maybe he wants to be a warlord, but is a spineless coward with a strength of 6. Maybe he wants to be elected to government and then use his influence to subtly usurp control of the surrounding countryside, but not only lacks the charisma to get elected, but the intelligence to come up with a workable plan. In other words, it's about risk vs reward. Every time an Evil person breaks a law, he risks being caught and subjected to punishment. Unless the risk is minimal (he feels the reward for some particular evil deed is substantially greater than the risk he is taking of getting caught and being punished) an evil character is not likely to take the risk. In a civilized society where the laws protect the rights of the little guy, evil people don't engage in murder or other depredations for the same reason I don't drive 100 mph on the highway. It's illegal, and they don't want to lose their drivers licenses.

[Stephen_E]

Quote:Originally Posted by Murderous Hobo
Aside from magical manipulation, how and why would anybody who has not committed enough acts to have his alignment shift to evil, show up as evil?

Also does acts that shift your alignment to evil mean you deserve to die. I worked with someone once for about 3 months. By DnD standards she was Evil, probably a sociopath by psych standards. She had seduced a married doctor at the hospital she worked and when it came out she became unwelcome from what I got out of her. She applied for the job at my workplace because it was in a different city and she basically charmed the boss. She only wanted the job so that she could get paid while job hunting. In the 3 months she was with us she did little work, treated her colleagues as lower class and kissed up to the relevant bosses coming up with a number of impractical "helpful suggestions" that were a pain to implement, did nothing to help and were discarded later, but made her look "up and coming" to the bosses. She then got a job elsewhere with better pay. Stayed there for about 3 monthss and then moved on again. Stayed there about 3 months more before moving again. She was the only thing of importance in her world and everone else were just suckers to be manipulated into keeping her comfortable for the least actual work.

As I said, Evil by DnD standards (I'd be inclined to call her evil even outside DnD standards) but were any of her evil acts, which were by and large only evil by intent, and defintely not illegal, worthy of her death? Hell no! She was just an unpleasant manipulative person.

Stephen

[ArmorArmadillo]

Quote:Originally Posted by Murderous Hobo
Aside from magical manipulation, how and why would anybody who has not committed enough acts to have his alignment shift to evil, show up as evil?

Also does acts that shift your alignment to evil mean you deserve to die. I worked with someone once for about 3 months. By DnD standards she was Evil, probably a sociopath by psych standards. She had seduced a married doctor at the hospital she worked and when it came out she became unwelcome from what I got out of her. She applied for the job at my workplace because it was in a different city and she basically charmed the boss. She only wanted the job so that she could get paid while job hunting. In the 3 months she was with us she did little work, treated her colleagues as lower class and kissed up to the relevant bosses coming up with a number of impractical "helpful suggestions" that were a pain to implement, did nothing to help and were discarded later, but made her look "up and coming" to the bosses. She then got a job elsewhere with better pay. Stayed there for about 3 monthss and then moved on again. Stayed there about 3 months more before moving again. She was the only thing of importance in her world and everone else were just suckers to be manipulated into keeping her comfortable for the least actual work.

As I said, Evil by DnD standards (I'd be inclined to call her evil even outside DnD standards) but were any of her evil acts, which were by and large only evil by intent, and defintely not illegal, worthy of her death? Hell no! She was just an unpleasant manipulative person.

Stephen
Then why was it okay for the Paladin to kill random "detects as evil" person.

[Tor the Fallen]

What if the Little Paladin needs to procure some information right away, but his suspects aren't talking? Would waterboarding them be within the Paladin's Code?

[Krellen]

What if the Little Paladin needs to procure some information right away, but his suspects aren't talking? Would waterboarding them be within the Paladin's Code?
No. That's torture - which is inflicting pain on other sentients for fun or profit (information, in this case, being the profit). That's evil; the evil act violates the code and makes him fall.

[Tor the Fallen]

No. That's torture - which is inflicting pain on other sentients for fun or profit (information, in this case, being the profit). That's evil; the evil act violates the code and makes him fall.

It's essentially the same as dangling the guy over a cliff and dropping him. The Little Paladin has no intention of dropping him, but the guy doesn't know that.

[Stephen_E]

Then why was it okay for the Paladin to kill random "detects as evil" person.

I didn't make myself clear.

I don't think it's ok to kill random "detects as evil".

My point was that people can do acts that when taken in context with their intent will make/match an evil alignment without doing anything worthy/deserving of been killed.

For example some homeless street person is selling items made from scrap for $1. You walk upto them and offer to pay $100 dollars for one and then at the last moment jerk the $100 dollar bill away and laugh "just kidding" and walk away. This is evil IMO, but it isn't illegal by any code of law I've heard of and frankly, as nasty as it is, I don't see it as worthy of a death sentance.

Stephen

[SpikeFightwicky]

It gets even better, the original post implies that killing Hitler will do a lot of good, this isn't necessarily the case, it is nothing that prevent an even worse dictator from coming to power, one that let's say ends up nuking the whole world. Of course the opposite is just as likely, but you can't claim your actions are good when your not even certain of the results.

Yeah, Westwood already showed us what would happen in Red Alert: No Hitler --> Stalin takes over :smallbiggrin:

Back on topic: I'm kind of shocked at the amount of people who believe that there is absolutely no recourse to dealing with evil other than killing it outright. Isn't the point of 'good' to seek ways of dealing with situations so that death is not an outcome?

Also, the whole 'intention doesn't matter' angle is a load of BS (IMO). An evil killer that targets evil people to torture and kill and loot is CHAOTIC/GOOD in this regard.... And about the Blood War, Evil subtype monsters CAN become good (WotC statted up a Succubus paladin of all things for one of their weekly articles...). So by now, all devils and demons surviving in the Blood War are respectively L/G and C/G... Definately makes a whole lot of sense.

[psychoticbarber]

Morality is the will of god, god is perfect and good so god is right. Evil goes against the will of god and is thus always wrong.

So by extension, ridding the world of evil is always good.

Or what I understand of theology 101. Not my personal cup of tea.


Actually as far as it goes, that's not a bad description of the parts of Christian doctrine that I'm not very friendly with. I should say now that I'm a devout Anglican (Episcopelian for you Americans) with some very strong ideas as to what is good and what is not in real life.

Unfortunately, D&D (as much as I like to model it like real life) is not real life. In the D&D Pantheon there are, by definition, many gods with opposing opinions on what is right. In my personal D&D setting, there are three: The Goddess of the Sun, the God of the Moon, and the Dusk (genderless). Each deity believes himself or herself to be good, but they are the great paragons of the Law/Chaos Axis: The Sun is Lawful, the Moon is Chaotic, and the Dusk is Neutral (thank you Giant in the Playground, by the way. This is the only thing I've really borrowed).

My point is coming right about now: Some of the Clerics of the Sun God are Lawful Good, some are Lawful Neutral, and some are Lawful evil, but they all think they're doing the right thing, because the "truest expression of goodness is in order." The good ones obviously tend towards organized goodness, while the evil ones tend to organized tyrrany (for the "greater good").

The same goes (I'm sure you can figure it out) for the Moon's Clerics, and the Dusk worshipers believe that true goodness comes from understanding the balance between the two. I have referenced on my alignment chart the idea that "Good" is the ideal ascribed to by Law, Chaos, and Neutrality; moving down to the Fallen Ideal (Neutral), and the Perverted Ideal (Evil).

What I'm doing is I'm processing law/chaos first, because Law/Chaos is less likely, as I see it, to change. A Lawful Good character (Miko?) moves faster down the Good/Evil axis (to Lawful Neutral, after committing a big evil act and falling as a Paladin) than down the Law/Chaos axis.

What does this have to do with anything, you might ask?

Well:
What makes you good or evil in D&D, as has been said, is your own actions, and to an extent the intentions behind those actions. Not the Gods. In D&D as I have played it, the Gods act more like advocates for various types of actions rather than the arbiters of what is good and what is evil. Most Gods advocate their portfolios by saying something along the lines "Look what I've got, isn't it awesome? (Insert Holy Goodness or Rich, Sexy, Evilness here) If you want some, you have to act like I want you to act."

Paladins must be Lawful Good. I think it is much, much easier for a Paladin to fall by committing an evil act than it is to grossly violate the code. Intention must be taken into account, but that does not excuse a Paladin doing evil in the name of good (See the Lawful Evil Sun Clerics above).

Paladins as I see them (I'm not relating this to RAW, here, and I'm proud of that fact because RAW says some pretty silly things without my help) should look to violence and destruction as a last resort. A last resort. I'm about to play a Paladin on a PbP game on the Wizards forums who has sworn never to strike first. He will not raise a sword unless he is witnessing evil being committed, and then he will not strike until evil attempts to strike him, an innocent, or a comrade.

Many will criticize this action. Many will say "If you had attacked before the villain attacked you, you wouldn't be hurt." He will reply "I am not graced with healing powers for no reason." Few will understand the truly difficult life a Paladin leads.

I'm sorry for digressing for so long, but I'm passionate about religion, faith, morality, and Paladins (and yet this Paladin on the boards is actually my first Paladin I've played as a player).

To address the OP: In my games, he falls like Wiley Coyote the moment he looks down.

Is killing Adolf Hitler evil? In strictest RAW terms, probably not.

Is killing a random guy who pings evil, evil? This depends on how black-and-white you run your games. I run mine pretty gray, but in a true black-and-white game, it's probably not evil.

Is it good to kill an evil person in self defense? Sure. Well, maybe I wouldn't call it good, but I'd leave your alignment alone.

Is it good to kill an evil person in defense of another person? This is getting a little harder to pin down, but lets assume that the moment you step in to prevent the evil person from killing his or her victim, your life is in danger and you're acting in self-defense.

Would it be better to find another solution to the above problems? On all counts, yes, yes, vehemently yes. I'm not saying one act of questionable morality and the Paladin is in fallsvile. I'm saying that the Paladin should exhaust other options (preferably all of them) before defeating evil by killing it. There will be times when evil is incorrigible and must be excised, but not every time is like that.

In closing, I think both sides have merit, but I play morality a little more nuanced than "Evil must Die." If that works for you, that's awesome, though.

[Krellen]

It's essentially the same as dangling the guy over a cliff and dropping him. The Little Paladin has no intention of dropping him, but the guy doesn't know that.
Another thing a Paladin shouldn't do. What if his grip slips? It's far too risky a tactic to employ.

[Fawsto]

Killing is am already evil thing! That's why all Paladins vow to use deadly force only as a last resource! Killing someone evil can be an evil act!

Totaly agreed with psychoticbarber.

[Stephen_E]

Back on topic: I'm kind of shocked at the amount of people who believe that there is absolutely no recourse to dealing with evil other than killing it outright. Isn't the point of 'good' to seek ways of dealing with situations so that death is not an outcome?


I suggest you stay away from political forums, particuly any that support the War on Terror. At least in DnD you can tell yourself they're only talking about a hypothetical situation in a fantasy world.

Personally I pleased so few posters supported the "it detects as evil, kill it" view.

Stephen

[Citizen Joe]

Personally I pleased so few posters supported the "it detects as evil, kill it" view.



I think that is a perfectly valid rationale. Just not for a paladin. The fun happens when you start getting evil yourself and become the most evil thing in the room. Then you see evil everywhere, because you're eminating it from yourself. Now you get to kill anything on the grounds of it detecting as evil.

[PaladinBoy]

Paladins as I see them (I'm not relating this to RAW, here, and I'm proud of that fact because RAW says some pretty silly things without my help) should look to violence and destruction as a last resort. A last resort. I'm about to play a Paladin on a PbP game on the Wizards forums who has sworn never to strike first. He will not raise a sword unless he is witnessing evil being committed, and then he will not strike until evil attempts to strike him, an innocent, or a comrade.

Many will criticize this action. Many will say "If you had attacked before the villain attacked you, you wouldn't be hurt." He will reply "I am not graced with healing powers for no reason." Few will understand the truly difficult life a Paladin leads.

I agree wholeheartedly. I believe strongly in the power of redemption (and not just in D+D either) and think that every effort should be made to capture and turn evil people before killing them. I know that it won't be possible every time, but I believe you can't tell until you try.

On top of that, I do my best to always realize that the person I'm talking to is another intelligent person, with thoughts, dreams, potential......just like myself. Killing someone means that their thoughts, dreams, and potential are lost to the world forever (well, maybe not in D+D). This is not a good thing; even evil creatures have potential, however small, to serve Good's cause. That's why I think killing should be an absolute last resort, and something to regret even if it was necessary.

There is a reason why my characters (who are pretty much all Good) usually have maxed-out Diplomacy and nonlethal combat options.

[Mike_G]

I agree wholeheartedly. I believe strongly in the power of redemption (and not just in D+D either) and think that every effort should be made to capture and turn evil people before killing them. I know that it won't be possible every time, but I believe you can't tell until you try.

On top of that, I do my best to always realize that the person I'm talking to is another intelligent person, with thoughts, dreams, potential......just like myself. Killing someone means that their thoughts, dreams, and potential are lost to the world forever (well, maybe not in D+D). This is not a good thing; even evil creatures have potential, however small, to serve Good's cause. That's why I think killing should be an absolute last resort, and something to regret even if it was necessary.

There is a reason why my characters (who are pretty much all Good) usually have maxed-out Diplomacy and nonlethal combat options.

See, you get to play a Paladin in my campaign.

The "Smite 'em All, and let St Cuthbert Sort 'em Out!" types do not. For long.

[SpikeFightwicky]

I suggest you stay away from political forums, particuly any that support the War on Terror.

Why's that? There's no such thing as a D&D Paladin in the real world, so I fail to see how my thoughts on the spirit of a D&D class are relevant to my political views (though I'd likely avoid most internet forums for this stuff... too many headaches)


At least in DnD you can tell yourself they're only talking about a hypothetical situation in a fantasy world.

Indeed I can. And I hope that those people view the D&D world differently than real life.


Personally I pleased so few posters supported the "it detects as evil, kill it" view.

Stephen

Very true. In fact, only a couple agreed with the OP's suggestion. The WotC message boards are full of the '1. Detect Evil -> 2. Kill whatever pings -> 3. Go back to 1. type people (last time I was on there, in any case).

[psychoticbarber]

There is a reason why my characters (who are pretty much all Good) usually have maxed-out Diplomacy and nonlethal combat options.

+1 Merciful Weapons (see Magic Item Compendium) FTW. As soon as you can afford them.

Edit: Oh, and thanks for the support :smallsmile:

[Citizen Joe]

I think someone made an explosive runes modified with something so it didn't affect good people and then maximized it. So open door, detect evil, if you sense evil, chuck in your holy hand grenade and sleep soundly knowing that you didn't hurt any good people.

Nice theory, but HORRIBLY flawed.

I think the primary flaw is the assumption that killing is not 'not good'. Since good requires respecting life, and killing is kinda antithetical to that, the best you can hope for is a neutral act. You aren't necessarily harming innocents (evil) but it certainly isn't respecting life (good).

So if you busted in, detected evil, then beat down the evil and stabilized the person. Then pinned a note on him saying 'Repent!' THAT might be considered good. Keep tracking down and beating this person down until he no longer pings evil. Just make sure you do it methodically so that it isn't considered chaotic/random. Still HORRIBLY illegal, but technically within the bounds of being a paladin.

[Stephen_E]

Quote:Originally Posted by Stephen_E
I suggest you stay away from political forums, particuly any that support the War on Terror.


Why's that? There's no such thing as a D&D Paladin in the real world, so I fail to see how my thoughts on the spirit of a D&D class are relevant to my political views (though I'd likely avoid most internet forums for this stuff... too many headaches)

Quote:At least in DnD you can tell yourself they're only talking about a hypothetical situation in a fantasy world.

Indeed I can. And I hope that those people view the D&D world differently than real life.[/QUOTE]

there were several underlying points that I should've specified.

1) While the DnD Paladin isn't per se a RL "class" it is a RL concept (where do you think the class came from) and many people do actually beleive it exists in the RW. If you follow Paladin threads, in particular the Grey Guard ones, this becomes quite obvious. People like to see their RL heroes as generic "paladins" which then makes a impact on how they look at DnD paladins.

2) Yours, or anyone elses specific political views don't necessarily affect your views on the spirit of DnD classes. IME there is a connection but it doesn't work that way AND it wasn't what I was talking about. It is simply that IME you see the "if it's evil killing it is good" is a common meme in those forums. (The connection I do see between between political views and views on the spirit of DnD classes is that a persons RL philosophical views affect both.)

3) The "there is no connect between RL morality and DnD morality" is a fallacy in my experiance. People don't have one set of morals/philosophy for RL and another unrelated set for DnD. They have one set for RL and they modify them to varying degrees to take into account the DnD campaign setting (think of it as applying a template). This is unavoidable for most people unless you have multiple personalities.

-------------

Quote:Originally Posted by Stephen_E

Personally I pleased so few posters supported the "it detects as evil, kill it" view.

Quote:Originally Posted by Citzen Joe

I think that is a perfectly valid rationale. Just not for a paladin. The fun happens when you start getting evil yourself and become the most evil thing in the room. Then you see evil everywhere, because you're eminating it from yourself. Now you get to kill anything on the grounds of it detecting as evil.


It's a poor rationale period.
If you're good it's a lousy rationale even if you aren't a paladin because it's likely to cause evil acts since most evil people have done nothing to deserve killing. Thus all you're doing is promulating the view "might is right" which is an essentially evil philosophy.
If you're neutral it's a lousy rationale because why do you care.
If you're evil it's a lousy rationale because it's hypocritical.

In short it's a poor rationale because it's irrational.
It can give great roleplaying material.
i.e. Play your PC on that principle, but don't use it as a defense to your DM when he tells you your alignment is shifting.

Stephen

[PaladinBoy]

+1 Merciful Weapons (see Magic Item Compendium) FTW. As soon as you can afford them.

QFT. And there's even more than that. The BoED has several weapons, like the truncheon, which either deal nonlethal damage or grapple the enemy instead of damage. The BoED also brings us the Nonlethal Substitution metamagic feat, which does exactly what the name suggests for any damaging spell. There are several useful spells in Cityscape; one is basically a nonlethal fireball, another locks weapons in their sheaths for the spell's duration.

Even if you can't deal nonlethal damage, you can still just take the -4 penalty to attack rolls like a man, or you can threaten to kill them unless they surrender (my character did that once and it worked like a charm).


Edit: Oh, and thanks for the support :smallsmile:

You're welcome. :smallsmile:

[JaxGaret]

What about a Paladin that follows this code (http://goblinscomic.com/d/20050917.html)?

[Starbuck_II]

----------------------
Refuse the Half-Orc Paladin

Refuse was an ugly Half-Orc who grew up on the streets. He stole when he was younger, but also stood up for weaker urchins. When he grew up, he renounced the mistakes of his past, but embraced the actions he did well. He joined the local paladin order.

Refuse had just used one of his Cure Disease abilities to heal a begger in the poor part of town. He needed to relax so he went to the local bar and ordered a big jug of prune juice.

Then he saw a cute little paladin attack and strike down the local painter Adolf with a sword. He struck down the cute little paladin, and beat him to unconciousness. He used lay on hands to heal Adolf the painter.

Refuse let Adolf Hitler go with his apologies. He took the cute little paladin back to the order for questioning.

Was Refuse right in his actions?

Nope. He just assaulted a force of good. While beating him to unconsciousness was not evil: it was not a good act.
Plus, Refuse's Order was no authority over the Paladin's as Paladins do not have to have orders only be called from the force of good.