PDA

View Full Version : How bad is the Silver Flame?



Cyclone231
2007-11-01, 01:18 PM
I mean, I used to see them as a pretty good organization, but then I found this little tidbit in one of the Dragonshards (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041115a):

"Why do you hurt your fellow citizens?"

The innkeeper froze. "What?"

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

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

"I am a paladin of the Silver Flame. I am sworn to fight evil in all its forms. My sword is for the fiends and monsters that deserve neither reason nor mercy. But you are no monster, and you can still find redemption." Handor put his hand on the hosteller's shoulder. "Consider your actions. Think about those you have harmed. Seek out a minister and cleanse your soul. The true darkness is rising, and if we are to survive we must all find a path to the light. If you cannot . . . then perhaps you are a monster, after all."I mean, wow. He makes a not-so-subtle death threat if this selfish guy, whose worst crime might be upcharging, doesn't go and repent? This guy is supposed to be a paladin?

Discuss.

cupkeyk
2007-11-01, 01:31 PM
It seems properly good to me. He pointed out the correct path and warned the inn keeper that turning back will mean his death.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-01, 01:32 PM
I think the point of that vignette was "He didn't just lop the guy's head off for showing up on his Evildar." Apparently, some people think Paladins are supposed to do this.

Keld Denar
2007-11-01, 01:34 PM
This is inquisition style churching. Its not unprecedented. The real world did it a couple hundred years ago. Its not an uncommon theme in fantasy. So, Eberron has it, so does Greyhawk (Pholtus), Dragonlance (King-Priest of Istar), and World of Warcraft (Scarlet Crusade).

Sometimes good looks a little too hard for a fight. Because good can not exist without evil, it sometimes looks for fights in the name of self-justification. Its an excellent plot source, and can lead into everything from holy war to high-tier demonic infiltration.

So these Silver Flame guys threaten commoners, big deal. That's what adventuring parties are for. Get a game and do something about it!

Captain Bananas
2007-11-01, 01:39 PM
Ok, let's try again without applying a real world framing / violating board policy. :smalleek:

I'm currently playing in a Silver Flame-themed campaign; my character was rescued by the adventuring party (after my first character ate a critical longbow shot through the head at level 2) from a torture chamber set up by the Blood of Vol. The paladin of the group eventually converted me after some proselytizing that bordered on "enhanced interrogation techniques."

That sums up the Silver Flame to me. The organization screams "ends justify the means" and the writers have left it open to considerable gray-scale morality on the part of its constituents/PCs. They can be the embodiment of ethics or Machiavellian scheming.

Stam
2007-11-01, 01:41 PM
I think it might depend an awful lot on the paladin's tone of voice when saying that.

If he was coming across all Holy-Glare-At-Evil, then yeah...he's threatening.
If he was coming across in a softer, friendlier way where he was just suggesting that it would be a very good idea that he clean up his act...

The key for me, here, was that when the man worried about getting killed, the paladin assured him that the edge of the blade was for demons and monsters only. The caveat added that the man, if he was completely unable to turn away from evil, he might end up as one of those monsters somewhere down the path.

This can either be a threat, or an urge to turn away from evil before he becomes a monster...and depends more on how it's given over than what is said, IMHO.

cupkeyk
2007-11-01, 01:44 PM
Captain Bananas, please scrub your reply of RL references, the thread may get locked for it.

Artanis
2007-11-01, 01:46 PM
I think it might depend an awful lot on the paladin's tone of voice when saying that.

If he was coming across all Holy-Glare-At-Evil, then yeah...he's threatening.
If he was coming across in a softer, friendlier way where he was just suggesting that it would be a very good idea that he clean up his act...

The key for me, here, was that when the man worried about getting killed, the paladin assured him that the edge of the blade was for demons and monsters only. The caveat added that the man, if he was completely unable to turn away from evil, he might end up as one of those monsters somewhere down the path.

This can either be a threat, or an urge to turn away from evil before he becomes a monster...and depends more on how it's given over than what is said, IMHO.
QFT.

Another possibility is that he's trying to save the man's life, knowing that there's plenty of Silver Flame guys out there who, unlike him, are of the "automatically stab all evildar blips" type.

Cyclone231
2007-11-01, 01:46 PM
I think the point of that vignette was "He didn't just lop the guy's head off for showing up on his Evildar." Apparently, some people think Paladins are supposed to do this.Yeah, he just threatened to lop the guy's head off. I know that's better, but it's still bad.

It seems properly good to me. He pointed out the correct path and warned the inn keeper that turning back will mean his death.I'm sure you meant to say "turning back will mean his death by the paladin's sword", right? Because that's what the paladin is saying. Thus the "then perhaps you are a monster, after all".

from a torture chamber set up by the Blood of Vol.-Why would the Blood of Vol set up a torture chamber? It doesn't really sound like them.

The key for me, here, was that when the man worried about getting killed, the paladin assured him that the edge of the blade was for demons and monsters only. The caveat added that the man, if he was completely unable to turn away from evil, he might end up as one of those monsters somewhere down the path.Except that it says: "then perhaps you are a monster after all."

PlatinumJester
2007-11-01, 01:47 PM
Captain Bananas, please scrub your reply of RL references, the thread may get locked for it.

Yeah you really should.

As for the Silver Flame if anyone of those guys give my PC crap I''ll happily kill'em.

cupkeyk
2007-11-01, 01:50 PM
Capitalism is vastly more evil than tyranny. -_-

Yes! Parents threaten children all the time. The law is based on threats of incarceration and death. More than good, he was being lawful. But by no means is he being evil.

Solo
2007-11-01, 01:53 PM
Capitalism is vastly more evil than tyranny. -_-


Is it now, COMRADE!?

neoweasel
2007-11-01, 01:53 PM
I think the point of that vignette was "He didn't just lop the guy's head off for showing up on his Evildar." Apparently, some people think Paladins are supposed to do this.
I'm mystified as to why the guy is showing up on a Pally's Evildar for overcharging at his inn.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that in the PHB and I *know* it doesn't work like that in the "way D&D should work according to neoweasel" built up in my head. It's just too.. banal.

Keld Denar
2007-11-01, 01:56 PM
His warning actually kind of reminds me of the scene from the end of the movie Boondock Saints. To save everyone from spoilers (in case anyone actually hasn't seen this epic piece of masterful filmmaking), I'll just say this. The brother wave their guns over an entire crowd warning them that they are not there for the lesser forms of evil, only the truely corrupt deserve their wrath. They warn the people not to cross over into true corruption, lest they be forced to reckon with the brothers.

At least the paladin of the Silver Flame didn't have his weapon drawn and trained on the innkeeper while making his "request."

Shisumo
2007-11-01, 02:00 PM
I'm mystified as to why the guy is showing up on a Pally's Evildar for overcharging at his inn.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that in the PHB and I *know* it doesn't work like that in the "way D&D should work according to neoweasel" built up in my head. It's just too.. banal.

He shows up because he's evil. (shrug) He has an evil alignment. Honestly, the paladin doesn't have the slightest clue about the greed thing, at least based on his Detect ability - he's either guessing or relying on other info, possibly from a good Sense Motive check or something.

I think the real purpose of the vignette is actually to establish what being "evil" actually means, particularly in Eberron: it isn't typically mad cultists or killer zombies, it's city guards who like to mock street beggars or innkeepers who water the wine. Evil can be - usually is - petty. Therefore smiting it? Not really a good idea.

cupkeyk
2007-11-01, 02:02 PM
Is it now, COMRADE!?

I am not denying that I am communist.

Tyger
2007-11-01, 02:03 PM
And its worth noting that the paladin in question didn't pat his sword, or place his hand on the hilt... the innkeeper looked at it first, and the paladin reassured him that his blade was only for monsters. But then pointed out that those who do petty evil can become monsters.

Typical paladin? Nah. Interesting display of Silver Flame? Yup!

Cyclone231
2007-11-01, 02:05 PM
Yes! Parents threaten children all the time. The law is based on threats of incarceration and death. More than good, he was being lawful. But by no means is he being evil.Large inequality between the punishment and the crime are generally considered evil. For example, being killed because you are selfish and refuse to repent after some guy threatened you is a large inequality between the punishment and the crime. Being killed, for, say, shoplifting, is similarly large and would only considered acceptable to a LE character.

I'm mystified as to why the guy is showing up on a Pally's Evildar for overcharging at his inn.Keith nerfs the Evildar.

At least the paladin of the Silver Flame didn't have his weapon drawn and trained on the innkeeper while making his "request." Red herring.

Just because there is something worse the paladin could have done doesn't mean what he did do is acceptable. I mean, he could also have killed everyone in the whole tavern for associating with this evil man! Doesn't make it right.

By the way, here's another thing that occured to me: this guy could actually be a good vampire or something. The paladin doesn't know. He could just have be a creature with the subtype (evil)! There are good members of traditionally evil species in Eberron.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-01, 02:07 PM
Yeah, he just threatened to lop the guy's head off. I know that's better, but it's still bad.
...
I'm sure you meant to say "turning back will mean his death by the paladin's sword", right? Because that's what the paladin is saying. Thus the "then perhaps you are a monster, after all".
That's definitely one way to read the scene. I don't think it's the only way to do so. I don't see anywhere where it says "stop overcharging, or I will kill you." I see the Paladin stating a difference between petty evil and truly malicious evil, and warning the innkeeper that keeping up petty evil in the face of encouragement to change can be seen as true, malicious evil, which he is sworn to fight.

Why would the Blood of Vol set up a torture chamber? It doesn't really sound like them.
...You're joking, right? He was probably being experimented on, rather than tortured, but that sounds like pretty standard practice for the Blood of Vol (the part of the faith that reports directly to Erandis, not the benign mystery cult they sell to the peasantry.)



As for the "good vampire" idea that you just posted...no one ever said paladins had to be smart. Also, I'm pretty sure Silver Flame dogma cites undead as unpersons anyway, which actually is somewhat shortsighted and evil.

Captain Bananas
2007-11-01, 02:09 PM
...You're joking, right? He was probably being experimented on, rather than tortured, but that sounds like pretty standard practice for the Blood of Vol (the part of the faith that reports directly to Erandis, not the benign mystery cult they sell to the peasantry.)

Hit the nail on the head there. From the perspective of both the party of Silver Flame worshipers and my unsuspecting and unwilling character, it was torture.

Murderous Hobo
2007-11-01, 02:12 PM
He shows up because he's evil. (shrug) He has an evil alignment. Honestly, the paladin doesn't have the slightest clue about the greed thing, at least based on his Detect ability - he's either guessing or relying on other info, possibly from a good Sense Motive check or something.

I think the real purpose of the vignette is actually to establish what being "evil" actually means, particularly in Eberron: it isn't typically mad cultists or killer zombies, it's city guards who like to mock street beggars or innkeepers who water the wine. Evil can be - usually is - petty. Therefore smiting it? Not really a good idea.

The thing is, if that's evil, then how come those guys are good? They seem to have no qualms about killing a few innocents and allies. They pray for forgiveness afterwards alright but they don't seem to actually try to avoid killing innocents.

That's a bit like the Pay&Spray from GTA, you pay/pray and the cops/gods are no longer on your trail.

Then people wonder why there are those jokes about Paladins being Lawfull Hypocrite. :P

Shisumo
2007-11-01, 02:15 PM
The thing is, if that's evil, then how come those guys are good? They seem to have no qualms about killing a few innocents and allies. They pray for forgiveness afterwards alright but they don't seem to actually try to avoid killing innocents.

That's a bit like the Pay&Spray from GTA, you pay/pray and the cops/gods are no longer on your trail.

Then people wonder why there are those jokes about Paladins being Lawfull Hypocrite. :P

Uh... who are "those guys?"

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-01, 02:17 PM
The thing is, if that's evil, then how come those guys are good? They seem to have no qualms about killing a few innocents and allies. They pray for forgiveness afterwards alright but they don't seem to actually try to avoid killing innocents.

That's a bit like the Pay&Spray from GTA, you pay/pray and the cops/gods are no longer on your trail.

Then people wonder why there are those jokes about Paladins being Lawfull Hypocrite. :P
Yeah, "those guys" are clearly Evil. We're talking about the Silver Flame and Paladins here.

Cyclone231
2007-11-01, 02:20 PM
That's definitely one way to read the scene. I don't think it's the only way to do so. I don't see anywhere where it says "stop overcharging, or I will kill you." I see the Paladin stating a difference between petty evil and truly malicious evil, and warning the innkeeper that keeping up petty evil in the face of encouragement to change can be seen as true, malicious evil, which he is sworn to fight.
If you look at it that way, the Paladin is still shooting himself in the foot (and simultaneously advocating a terribly imbalanced relationship between the crime and the punishment). As the saying goes, you attract more flies with honey than vinegar.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-01, 02:22 PM
I reiterate: no one ever said Paladins had to be smart. Just honorable and Lawful Good.

Cyclone231
2007-11-01, 02:30 PM
I reiterate: no one ever said Paladins had to be smart. Just honorable and Lawful Good.Indeed.

But how is the following thought process morally acceptable?

Man is overcharging his customers -> tell him to stop and repent for his crimes -> if he doesn't, he's so evil I need to kill him.

There is supposed to be reasonable equivalency between the punishment and the crime. The crime of repeatedly overcharging customers is not worthy of the death penalty, ever.

cupkeyk
2007-11-01, 02:37 PM
Man is overcharging his customers> people who overcharge their customers will eventually see the profitability of unscrupulous transactions> tell him to stop, repent or risk the probability of turning into a truly heinous man> when he has turned into a man of no moral qualms, kill him.

KIDS
2007-11-01, 02:39 PM
Overcharging customers isn't evil. Not overcharging them might be good, but overcharging...eh...? What?

That Paladin, as long as he doesn't harm anyone for such trinket acts, passes as "good RP", but were he to actually harm someone for that (unless there was a law or fine about that) that would be very un-Paladinish.
But honestly, on first glance he seems like a jerk.

p.s.

Is it now, COMRADE!?

That was pure genius... :)

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-01, 02:40 PM
Here's the thought process, as I see it.

Man is overcharging his customers -> tell him to stop and repent for his crimes -> if he doesn't, he's more evil than a simple greedy shopkeeper -> more evil than a simple greedy shopkeeper means he might need stabbing

cupkeyk's is better.

Really though, I'm not sure if our hypothetical Paladin would follow through on the threat anyway. It might be more of a scare 'em straight tactic. I wouldn't call that evil, just not very bright or productive.

Cyclone231
2007-11-01, 02:42 PM
Man is overcharging his customers> people who overcharge their customers will eventually see the profitability of unscrupulous transactions> tell him to stop, repent or risk the probability of turning into a truly heinous man> when he has turned into a man of no moral qualms, kill him.

Ah, but the question is, again, not one of descent - if the man doesn't repent, "perhaps you are a monster". Key word, are, as in, you are one right now, not as in, you are going to become one.

tainsouvra
2007-11-01, 02:42 PM
There are two problems here. The first is a simple matter of reading comprehension, the second is a subtle matter of perception.

The first problem revolves around the last line being taken as a reference to overcharging--which is nonsensically taking it out of the context of the line before it. The paladin was not merely talking about overcharging anymore:
"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."
...the scoundrel is not being threatened with death for overcharging. He is being told that, if he is utterly unable to find any way to be good, then he is irredeemably evil. This is true by definition, the paladin is simply pointing it out. The earlier-mentioned consequence of being irredeemably evil can definitely be taken as a threat, but it's not a threat for overcharging, it's a threat for being irredeemably evil.

The the second problem is a subtle one that often plays havoc with threads like this one. The alignment of each reader--not character--is the single biggest factor in how such scenes are interpreted. In other words, each of us has our own moral compass, and it's not feasible to interpret such scenes without using our own perceptions to do so.

In my mind, overcharging such as what was suggested is a dishonest practice that harms others. It's evil to do dishonest things that harm others. It is not, however, a capital offense in itself. In that light, what the paladin said is completely justified, in fact pointing the dishonest man toward redemption was the right thing to do. My moral compass, however, is significantly more sensitive than that of the average person, and most readers probably do not see anything wrong with scamming a little extra cash out of people who should know better than to fall for it. To them, and possibly to you the reader of this post, the scene is a very different one--one in which the paladin seems overzealous.

fendrin
2007-11-01, 02:46 PM
I interpret it pretty literally: if the innkeeper CANNOT change, he MAY be a monster.

Note the difference between CAN not and WILL not.

This paladin is actually pretty savvy. The 'may' indicates that that he knows that some people cannot change, but that they still are not monsters. By making such a distinction I think that he is more Good than a typical Paladin.

Also, Detect Evil is not 'nerfed' in Eberron as one post claims. Instead, the alignments are re-balanced. Most games have evil being extreme and good being moderate. Neutral claims moderate evils like greed.

However, the PHB defines evil as:
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
By charging more than is fair, the innkeeper is economically oppressing his customers. That makes him evil.

Murderous Hobo
2007-11-01, 02:47 PM
Uh... who are "those guys?"

Yeah, "those guys" are clearly Evil. We're talking about the Silver Flame and Paladins here.

Owh, just some things I picked up from the the link in the OP. :smalltongue:


By charging more than is fair, the innkeeper is economically oppressing his customers. That makes him evil.

They don't have to visit his locale though, they are free to find another bar to hang out in. Though we don't know much about the inn and it's keeper, considering the keepers shady character I reckon that the patronage is rather shady as well and brawls and stabbings might happen pretty often.

Any normal bar would throw those shady figures out, but this overcharging innkeeper provides them actually a service by not throwing them out.

daggaz
2007-11-01, 02:50 PM
Ok, let's try again without applying a real world framing / violating board policy. :smalleek:

I'm currently playing in a Silver Flame-themed campaign; my character was rescued by the adventuring party (after my first character ate a critical longbow shot through the head at level 2) from a torture chamber set up by the Blood of Vol. The paladin of the group eventually converted me after some proselytizing that bordered on "enhanced interrogation techniques."

That sums up the Silver Flame to me. The organization screams "ends justify the means" and the writers have left it open to considerable gray-scale morality on the part of its constituents/PCs. They can be the embodiment of ethics or Machiavellian scheming.

My emphasis.

Woops, looks like you just shot yourself in the foot there.

Neon Knight
2007-11-01, 02:52 PM
By charging more than is fair, the innkeeper is economically oppressing his customers. That makes him evil.

Who determines what is "fair" to charge?

Cyclone231
2007-11-01, 02:53 PM
The first problem revolves around the last line being taken as a reference to overcharging--which is nonsensically taking it out of the context of the line before it. The paladin was not merely talking about overcharging anymore:
"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."
...the scoundrel is not being threatened with death for overcharging. He is being told that, if he is utterly unable to find any way to be good, then he is irredeemably evil. This is true by definition, the paladin is simply pointing it out. The earlier-mentioned consequence of being irredeemably evil can definitely be taken as a threat, but it's not a threat for overcharging, it's a threat for being irredeemably evil.
Irredeemably evil, perhaps, but he is "evil" only in the sense of "selfish", and perhaps he is also making people pay more for a luxury item. So, yes, he would be incontrivertibly making people pay more for a luxury item. It's not a crime worthy of death.


Thus all lycanthropes -- even those seemingly innocent and young -- must be destroyed.To this, I can certainly empathize with it. Even the LG lycanthropy werebearism are an unnatural alien horror which crawls up inside a person and forces them to become Lawful Good, and as such is Evil.

Khorebh
2007-11-01, 02:58 PM
That sums up the Silver Flame to me. The organization screams "ends justify the means" and the writers have left it open to considerable gray-scale morality on the part of its constituents/PCs. They can be the embodiment of ethics or Machiavellian scheming.

Where can these guys be found?

Also, that's my favorite type of NPC organzation. The kind that can be either very, very good or very, very bad in the name of being very, very good. Makes for nice moral tension.

Cyclone231
2007-11-01, 03:07 PM
Where can these guys be found?

Also, that's my favorite type of NPC organzation. The kind that can be either very, very good or very, very bad in the name of being very, very good. Makes for nice moral tension.Eberron Campaign Setting, Faiths of Eberron, and there's probably some good information in Five Nations under Thrane.

cupkeyk
2007-11-01, 03:09 PM
Luxury should be overcharged because it redistributes wealth from those who can spend it to people who provide the services and goods necessary to make that luxury available. An innkeeper, however, provides a basic service: shelter; the overcharging of which denies people of their basic human need. If it had rosewood interiors and silk upholstery, then that is luxurious and may be be freely overcharged.

tainsouvra
2007-11-01, 03:10 PM
The first problem revolves around the last line being taken as a reference to overcharging--which is nonsensically taking it out of the context of the line before it. The paladin was not merely talking about overcharging anymore:
"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."
...the scoundrel is not being threatened with death for overcharging. He is being told that, if he is utterly unable to find any way to be good, then he is irredeemably evil. This is true by definition, the paladin is simply pointing it out. The earlier-mentioned consequence of being irredeemably evil can definitely be taken as a threat, but it's not a threat for overcharging, it's a threat for being irredeemably evil.Irredeemably evil, perhaps, but he is "evil" only in the sense of "selfish", and perhaps he is also making people pay more for a luxury item. So, yes, he would be incontrivertibly making people pay more for a luxury item. It's not a crime worthy of death. No. For the second time, the line is not about overcharging, it is about being both evil and beyond redemption. Overcharging is not punishable by death, in fact the paladin already made that clear by stating that his sword would not be used for such things. What he did imply was that being an irredeemably evil monster was justification for death, and frankly that shouldn't come as a surprise. That's pretty much the entire reason paladins exist.

Cyclone231
2007-11-01, 03:10 PM
Luxury should be overcharged because it redistributes wealth from those who can spend it to people who provide the services and goods necessary to make that luxury available. An innkeeper, however, provides a basic service: shelter; the overcharging of which denies people of their basic human need. If it had rosewood interiors and silk upholstery, then that is luxurious and may be be freely overcharged.
The overcharging mentioned by the paladin was watering down wine and increasing the cost on... something (I guess wine, since that's the last thing mentioned). Wine is a luxury.

fendrin
2007-11-01, 03:11 PM
Owh, just some things I picked up from the the link in the OP. <snip>
And of course in Eberron a cardinal of the silver flame might be evil, even though the organization is not. That cardinal can even continue to cast spells and such. There is even the theory that there is an evil contained in the flame that can mislead the worshippers. Some flamers downright do not believe in the evil, and do what ever the flame tells them.

Keld Denar
2007-11-01, 03:11 PM
Who determines what is "fair" to charge?

Big Brother determines what is a fair and equitable price. Big Brother is always right. Big Brother is watching you.

daggaz
2007-11-01, 03:11 PM
Luxury or not, it is still stealing..

Neon Knight
2007-11-01, 03:12 PM
People keep mentioning "overcharging" but what is the baseline for comparison? What determines "overcharging?"

tainsouvra
2007-11-01, 03:15 PM
The overcharging mentioned by the paladin was watering down wine and increasing the cost on... something That is actually a mistaken interpretation. The paladin saw greed, but didn't know how that greed was expressed. He doesn't know that the man is overcharging, or that overcharging would be the only expression of his greed. Quoting with emphasis:
"Do you water down your ale? Charge three crowns when the price is two? Or worse?"
The paladin is stating that he might be doing something small, like watering down his ale or charging an extra coin...or he might be doing something worse than that. He doesn't know which is the case at this point, so he points the man toward redemption.

Artanis
2007-11-01, 03:15 PM
People keep mentioning "overcharging" but what is the baseline for comparison? What determines "overcharging?"
The good's baseline price on the market, since the "overcharging" in question isn't overcharging per se, but rather failing to reduce the price when selling less of that good.

If a mug of ale costs 3 copper, and the innkeeper waters it down to 2/3 booze, 1/3 water, there's only 2 copper worth of ale in there. So still charging 3 copper would be overcharging.


Edit:

Also, what tainsouvra said.

cupkeyk
2007-11-01, 03:16 PM
The overcharging mentioned by the paladin was watering down wine and increasing the cost on... something (I guess wine, since that's the last thing mentioned). Wine is a luxury.

When potable water is a commodity as in most medieval settings, wine is actually not a luxury but basic foodstuff.

Watering down wine, regardless of it being luxury or not, is swindling, not overcharging.

tainsouvra
2007-11-01, 03:18 PM
People keep mentioning "overcharging" but what is the baseline for comparison? What determines "overcharging?" The way the statement is made makes it clear that there is some set price which the innkeeper is supposed to be using. Perhaps there is an innkeepers guild that sets a price, perhaps there is a city law, perhaps the inn is owned by someone else who had set the prices himself...the exact source is not relevant, as long as such a standard exists--and, if there is no such standard, that only makes the innkeepers response more suspicious.

Tor the Fallen
2007-11-01, 03:19 PM
Yeah, he just threatened to lop the guy's head off. I know that's better, but it's still bad.

Why does everyone think Paladins have to be *******?

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-01, 03:19 PM
In my opinion, the paladin acted LG...just not NG, which is pure good (and no, please no arguing on this. NG is "Good, unimpeded by Law and chaos, etc."). He is probably going to go grey guard some time in the future, and he is actually perfectly okay. He is just a jerk, and if he is consumed by zeal, he'll turn into :miko: . Perhaps, to clarify this matter, we shoul create a detailed, credible action for each G alignment? It could help to determine the possible paths for dealing with such a situation.

Artanis
2007-11-01, 03:36 PM
Perhaps, to clarify this matter, we shoul create a detailed, credible action for each G alignment? It could help to determine the possible paths for dealing with such a situation.
This brings up an idea I had a while back: go through the 9 alignments and find a famous character that fits that alignment as closely as possible. So when a situation of "what would <Alignment> do now?" comes up, a person could think, "How would <Corresponding Character> react?" I.e. when thinking of what a CE character might do, they might ask themselves, "How would The Joker react?"

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-01, 03:39 PM
Except all that does is pigeonhole alignments as "acting like Character X", which is not at all what they're about.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-01, 03:39 PM
Yes, good idea. And we could compile an anti list. For the anti list, two instant ones:

LG: Miko. 'Nuff said. No mercy.


CG: Any CG sample encounter. Off the top of my head, red mask from ToB, a classic Chaotic Bastard.

Citizen Joe
2007-11-01, 03:56 PM
Re-read that quote only replace "Handor is a paladin" with "Handor is a scam artist/enforcer from the mob."

tainsouvra
2007-11-01, 03:58 PM
Re-read that quote only replace "Handor is a paladin" with "Handor is a scam artist/enforcer from the mob." It really doesn't make a whit of sense that way...was that the point?

Snooder
2007-11-01, 04:01 PM
The the second problem is a subtle one that often plays havoc with threads like this one. The alignment of each reader--not character--is the single biggest factor in how such scenes are interpreted. In other words, each of us has our own moral compass, and it's not feasible to interpret such scenes without using our own perceptions to do so.


Agreed. We seem to be forgetting that the innkeeper in question is evil. Not possibly evil, not neutral with some selfish tendencies, completely and utterly evil. This is not a negotiable or arguable part of the discussion.

Ok, now re-evaluate the conversation in light of this. Paladin sees evil. He is sworn to oppose evil. He points out to the evil that it is evil and warns it to repent if it has not sunk too far. He further reminds it that if it HAS sunk irredeemably then he will be forced to destroy it.

The discussion about the penalty for overcharging is completely beside the point. The Paladin wouldn't be killing the man for overcharging, he'd be killing him for being utterly and unredeemably evil. Paladin doesn't actually know why the man is evil, which is why he is giving him a second chance. The statement about overcharging is merely an example of actions that can lead one to the path of evil.

Any question of the morality of overcharging or whether a Paladin is allowed to threaten is irrelevant. This is D&D. Evil is clear. The man was evil. The Paladin should treat him as evil. The only question here is whether the Paladin was justified in opposing all evil, or whether he should have ignored it, being a petty sort of evil. If we agree that he was justified in opposing this particular evil, then threatening the innkeeper with the logical consequences of following the path of evil is quite appropriate. And the logical consequence of evil (not evil actions, just general monstrousity) for a Paladin is pretty much death.

Artanis
2007-11-01, 04:10 PM
Except all that does is pigeonhole alignments as "acting like Character X", which is not at all what they're about.
Well...yeah. I mostly meant as a "cheat sheet" sort of thing.

illathid
2007-11-01, 04:20 PM
The actual point of these dragonshard articles on the Silver Flame was to show that the entire organization isn't some hypocritical Cardinal Richelieu infested mockery of a church. That's not to say that there are not aspects of that in the church, but rather it is a problem that it has to deal with to stay true to itself.

I can't find the quote, but I believe Keith Baker said that only a small minority of the Silver Flame faithful are the stereotypical overzealous crusader types. You know the "Kill them all... God can sort out his own" type (and most of those are the faithful that come from Aundair, and still can see the effects of the Lycanthropic plague).

Another thing to take into account is the Silver flame's hierarchy of evil, which can be found in the Faiths of Eberron book. Paraphrased, they are as follows, starting with the most evil:

Beings of Alien Evil (e.g. Demons, Aberrations)
Beings of Unnatural Evil (e.g. the Undead, Lycanthropes)
Beings of Inherent Evil (e.g. Yuant-ti, Hags)
Beings that select Evil (e.g. any evil humanoids, etc.)
Internal Evil (e.g. one's own greed, hate)

In the above hierarchy those who choose evil are actually supposed to be redeemed rather than killed, if at all possible. Thus I see the paladin in the dragonshard not actually threatening the innkeeper, but rather trying to redeem him in the theological language of the Silver Flame.

Citizen Joe
2007-11-01, 04:24 PM
It really doesn't make a whit of sense that way...was that the point?

Point: Handor is scamming the innkeeper for free drinks.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-01, 04:27 PM
Well...yeah. I mostly meant as a "cheat sheet" sort of thing.
See, I don't think such a "cheat sheet" would actually help anyone who needs it. Alignment isn't really that hard of a concept; it's the people who either don't care or insist on taking everything absolutely literally that have trouble with it in-game. (Plenty of other people just like debating it on forums, of course). These people would probably just take a list of characters associated with alignments as "you must play this character to be this alignment." And the people who just like debating on forums would simply argue such a list into the ground.

Plus, there's the fact that any interesting fictional character is probably going to at least appear to transcend D&D's alignment slots. Heck, most well-played D&D characters will at some point or another.

Mr.Moron
2007-11-01, 04:31 PM
I don't see this as a death threat at all. I read it more as this

"What you're doing is wrong, you're not a horrible person... yet. Clean up your act, evil is everywhere. If you keep doing what you're doing, you'll eventually be beyond redemption, a true "Monster". I'm telling you this because I don't want to have to kill you or anyone like you, It's better for good to thrive than for me simply stamp out evil"

Certainly, it might be a bit of a stretch in some places but I think that was the general tone of it. I think a key clue to the mood of the paladin in this scene is



Handor put his hand on the hosteller's shoulder.


He put his hand on his shoulder, as described it get the impression of a somewhat gentle motion. He could have been described as grabbing his shoulder, leaning into his shoulder or taking up some other aggressive posture. He wasn't described in this way, I get the impression of somebody trying to give a stern warning to a (minor) evil-doer but not somebody a real death threat.

Citizen Joe
2007-11-01, 04:40 PM
How to survive in Thrane:
Get a medium evil item and carry it with you. Preferably, a claw of some fiendish creature.
Get a medium good item and carry it with you. Probably just a holy symbol.

When a paladin shows up points you out on evildar, point to the evil claw and say "Would an evil person risk their lives to save their village from the demon that used to own this claw? Ya, why don't you just detect good on me and see just how stupid your accusation is. Then why don't you go molest some goblins or something and let REAL heroes enjoy their drinks."

Neon Knight
2007-11-01, 04:58 PM
I've always disliked the "petty deeds can earn you alignments" method. It seems like a cheap way to prevent Detect Evil from destroying subterfuge and backstab ploys.

Seriously, when the baseline for comparison are things like Clerics of evil deities, undead, and demons/devils, creatures who are by their very existence profane, it doesn't make much sense for something like grifting or overpricing an act worthy of pinging evil.

Take the following for instance:

McJustice the Paladin: Hail, Good King! I have just returned from the tomb of the mummy king! I... GREAT SCOTT!!

King: Eh?

McJustice: Your grand vizier, my lord! He reeks of evil!

King: What?

McJustice: The aura he emits is as strong as the vile mummy king N'wah!

King: Vizier, is this true.

Vizier: Quite, my king. It appears my attempts to monopolize the incense market has resulted in the heavens considering me evil.

McJustice: That cannot be all you hide, fiend! Even a zombie, a loathsome creature whose very existence is evil, does not stink of evil as thoroughly as you do!

Vizier: Honestly, that is all I did. Apparently, capitalism is evil.

King: Clearly, this means that good is communism!

Come to think of it, the whole HD= Strength of Aura thing is kind of annoying. A level 1 commoner who murdered someone detects as less evil than a level 11 expert who knowingly sells faulty wagon wheels.

tainsouvra
2007-11-01, 05:04 PM
Kasrkin, they don't show up the same. Check it out. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm)

For the Vizier to show up as evil as an undead of level 9+, he would have to be solidly into epic levels.

Edit:
Look at it this way--creatures of immense power who are evil, by their very nature, will have a more profound effect on the good/evil balance than creatures of little power.

Neon Knight
2007-11-01, 05:07 PM
Kasrkin, they don't show up the same. Check it out. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm)

For the Vizier to show up as evil as an undead of level 9+, he would have to be solidly into epic levels.

Edit:
Look at it this way--creatures of immense power who are evil, by their very nature, will have a more profound effect on the good/evil balance than creatures of little power.

I never gave the Vizier's level. Perhaps this is Forgotten Realms or something.

EDIT: He could be something like an epic Wizard with 9 INT. I don't buy it.

Citizen Joe
2007-11-01, 05:09 PM
Yank detect evil and all the problems with people maybe being evil goes away. That means paladins would actually need EVIDENCE of evil acts and you would be judged by what you have actually done rather than someone else's opinion.

illathid
2007-11-01, 05:11 PM
It's not so much "petty deeds can earn you alignments" as "most people are petty". Most people will never be able do any great deed, whether it's good or evil. But, since it's D&D they still have to have an alignment. So for petty people, petty deeds are enough. It's kind of a potential vs. actualized scenario. At least thats how I see it.

Neon Knight
2007-11-01, 05:15 PM
It's not so much "petty deeds can earn you alignments" as "most people are petty". Most people will never be able do any great deed, whether it's good or evil. But, since it's D&D they still have to have an alignment. So for petty people, petty deeds are enough. It's kind of a potential vs. actualized scenario. At least thats how I see it.

Clearly, Neutral is not an alignment. Thank you for showing us the way, oh Mindflaying one of wisdom! :smalltongue:

Ulzgoroth
2007-11-01, 05:37 PM
Clearly, Neutral is not an alignment. Thank you for showing us the way, oh Mindflaying one of wisdom! :smalltongue:
Alignment and power-level are independent properties. Being more able to implement your alignment on a large scale does not make you more strongly associated with it. (though it may give you a stronger aura)

PaladinBoy
2007-11-01, 06:20 PM
The way the statement is made makes it clear that there is some set price which the innkeeper is supposed to be using. Perhaps there is an innkeepers guild that sets a price, perhaps there is a city law, perhaps the inn is owned by someone else who had set the prices himself...the exact source is not relevant, as long as such a standard exists--and, if there is no such standard, that only makes the innkeepers response more suspicious.

In Eberron, that would be House Ghallanda and its Hostelers Guild. If the inn is a licensed or bound business connected with the Hostelers Guild, then it has to follow certain standards, which includes prices. (This is how Dragonmarked explains how the prices in the PHB can be applied all over Eberron, actually.)


And as for the moral debate. Let's go back to the quote.

"But you are no monster, and you can still find redemption."
*snip*
"... if we are to survive we must all find a path to the light."

He's telling the innkeeper that he knows about the innkeeper's greed (which is an evil trait) but saying that the innkeeper does not deserve the sword, as he is not irredeemable Evil yet. Or, more properly, he can't tell whether the innkeeper is irredeemable or not, until the innkeeper tries to redeem himself.


"If you cannot... then perhaps you are a monster, after all."

If he can't redeem himself, then his evil is too great to be saved. If he continues to commit evil acts, then his evil was irredeemable all along, and he was a monster the whole time. Then the paladin very well might kill him.

Frankly, I doubt it; I personally think the paladin is using a little hyperbole for emphasis here, and wouldn't consider the innkeeper a monster even if he couldn't redeem himself. That is, of course, entirely unprovable opinion, so it could quite easily be wrong.

I'll take a look at the BoED (even though many people don't seem to like it). Let's see what good traits the paladin is demonstrating, by not killing the innkeeper even though he registers as evil. Mercy, forgiveness, and attempting to redeem evil jump out at me. Perhaps also helping others, if not very effectively; namely the people the innkeeper is cheating. Killing the innkeeper would probably fall outside the limits of acceptable violence, even against evil, as well as demonstrating an absence of the first three traits above. It would demonstrate a strong desire to protect the victims in the most effective way possible, but that seems unbelievably excessive. And while not doing anything to the innkeeper would demonstrate mercy and forgiveness in abundance, it would also demonstrate a lack of interest in redeeming evil and a lack of interest in making sure his victims are protected, which doesn't seem acceptable to me.

One problem is the percived death threat in the quote:

"My sword is for the demons and monsters that deserve neither reason nor mercy."
*snip*
"If you cannot... then perhaps you are a monster, after all."

And yes, the paladin is probably saying that if the innkeeper can't redeem himself, he'll die on the point of the paladin's sword. It does seem like a srupid thing to say if you want to redeem someone, I'll admit. Even so, though, I think the paladin's other words and actions in this exchange demonstrate that he is trying to avoid killing the innkeeper. He wants the innkeeper to redeem himself, rather than continuing to commit evil until he comes back to stop him. He doesn't draw his sword, or even touch it... the innkeeper worries that the paladin will kill him for his evil, and so he glances at the sword. The paladin catches it and essentially tells him, "No, I won't use that on you, unless your evil proves to be irredeemable." He shows him mercy and tries to put him on the path of redemption.

illathid
2007-11-01, 06:24 PM
Clearly, Neutral is not an alignment. Thank you for showing us the way, oh Mindflaying one of wisdom! :smalltongue:

It's not so much "petty deeds can earn you alignments" as "most people are petty". Most people will never be able do any great deed, whether it's good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or even neutral. But, since it's D&D they still have to have an alignment. So for petty people, petty deeds are enough. It's kind of a potential vs. actualized scenario. At least thats how I see it.

does that make it better?

StickMan
2007-11-01, 06:28 PM
I don't really see this so much as a threat as a be good. But there are different branches of the Silver Flame and some are corrupt and evilish. Other are just the good guys.

Renegade Paladin
2007-11-01, 06:29 PM
I mean, I used to see them as a pretty good organization, but then I found this little tidbit in one of the Dragonshards (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041115a):
I mean, wow. He makes a not-so-subtle death threat if this selfish guy, whose worst crime might be upcharging, doesn't go and repent? This guy is supposed to be a paladin?

Discuss.
There was no death threat. He didn't threaten the merchant. The paladin never went for his sword. (One of my friends thought that's what happened when I first showed him this piece; he mistook the line about the merchant's eyes glancing to the paladin's weapon to mean the paladin went for it.)

This is exactly what a paladin should do when he encounters an evil yet civilized being. This isn't a matter of being a little greedy; this guy is doing something wrong. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be evil. The paladin was being generous when he presumed the offense was watering down the ale; if the merchant is out-and-out evil, it was probably something along the lines of racketeering at the very least.

Cyclone231
2007-11-01, 06:42 PM
There was no death threat. He didn't threaten the merchant. The paladin never went for his sword.
Just because you don't go for your weapon doesn't mean you aren't making a threat. He specifically states that his sword is for a particular group of beings (fiends and monsters), and then he later says that if the innkeeper doesn't (or can't - given that it's something which requires a personal choice, it's pretty much the same) do what he says, he may be a member of that group.

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.

neoweasel
2007-11-01, 06:45 PM
Agreed. We seem to be forgetting that the innkeeper in question is evil. Not possibly evil, not neutral with some selfish tendencies, completely and utterly evil. This is not a negotiable or arguable part of the discussion.
I could grant that if I were to assume that all GMs treat paladin abilities in ways that make sense to me. I've seen a few (and heard of LOTS more) cases where GMs feel that paladins need to be absolute paragons of their alignment with no slips EVER. I don't personally agree to that - I feel like that should be the domain of Exalted characters. I have to say that I would never play a paladin that saw Evil in someone's soul (and I use the capital E there to distinguish from someone who has committed a few minor evil acts but still is Good or Neutral in their alignment) and assume that they are that way because they overcharged their customers.


Ok, now re-evaluate the conversation in light of this. Paladin sees evil. He is sworn to oppose evil. He points out to the evil that it is evil and warns it to repent if it has not sunk too far. He further reminds it that if it HAS sunk irredeemably then he will be forced to destroy it.
That's fair. I wasn't thinking about that when I posted, I was thinking "putting someone to death is a MASSIVE overreaction to overcharging" rather than "he KNOWS this person is evil and is warning him off that path."


The discussion about the penalty for overcharging is completely beside the point. The Paladin wouldn't be killing the man for overcharging, he'd be killing him for being utterly and unredeemably evil. Paladin doesn't actually know why the man is evil, which is why he is giving him a second chance. The statement about overcharging is merely an example of actions that can lead one to the path of evil.

Any question of the morality of overcharging or whether a Paladin is allowed to threaten is irrelevant. This is D&D. Evil is clear. The man was evil. The Paladin should treat him as evil. The only question here is whether the Paladin was justified in opposing all evil, or whether he should have ignored it, being a petty sort of evil. If we agree that he was justified in opposing this particular evil, then threatening the innkeeper with the logical consequences of following the path of evil is quite appropriate. And the logical consequence of evil (not evil actions, just general monstrousity) for a Paladin is pretty much death.
I'll admit that I tend to play D&D alignments slightly differently than they are in the book. To ping on Detect Alignment spells, they have to be strongly motivated in that direction or supernaturally defined as being such (i.e. Undead always ping as Evil because they are abominations in the eyes of the gods). I often forget that not everyone plays that way.

Renegade Paladin
2007-11-01, 07:05 PM
Just because you don't go for your weapon doesn't mean you aren't making a threat. He specifically states that his sword is for a particular group of beings (fiends and monsters), and then he later says that if the innkeeper doesn't (or can't - given that it's something which requires a personal choice, it's pretty much the same) do what he says, he may be a member of that group.
Okay. And if the man is a monster after all, then the paladin is right to threaten him.

Wolfwood2
2007-11-01, 07:16 PM
Wow, I am completed shocked by the OP's reading of that Dragonshard.

The point of the Dragonshard was supposed to show a paladin being a nice guy and trying to diplomatically get an evil guy to consider the error of his ways. It wasn't about issuing dark threats. It's just inviting the guy to consider where his human evils might someday leave him.

Captain van der Decken
2007-11-01, 07:29 PM
How to survive in Thrane:
Get a medium evil item and carry it with you. Preferably, a claw of some fiendish creature.
Get a medium good item and carry it with you. Probably just a holy symbol.

When a paladin shows up points you out on evildar, point to the evil claw and say "Would an evil person risk their lives to save their village from the demon that used to own this claw? Ya, why don't you just detect good on me and see just how stupid your accusation is. Then why don't you go molest some goblins or something and let REAL heroes enjoy their drinks."

Wouldn't the paladin just ask you to put the claw down, and then try again, rather than try to cast a spell he can't cast? (or blindly believe someone he just detected as evil)

Keld Denar
2007-11-02, 08:23 AM
The paladin is trying to redeem the man. Greed may be a lessor evil, but it can be a gateway evil. The man expressedly is interested in coin, especially easy, illgotten coin. As he stands now, he might not be against being paid off for allowing illicit activities to take place under his roof. He would probably be open to the ideas of allowing flow of contraband/fenced goods through his establishment in return for compensation. After a while of that, he might look the other way to the occassional kidnapping or murder under his roof, provided it was quiet and didn't give him a bad reputation. Now he's aiding indirectly in activities that ARE evil. Now he's responsible for the loss of life and/or freedom of others. From there, its an easy slide to directly being involved in similar activities, out of necessity to cover ones own actions. evil >> more evil >> more evil >> Evil

If he had sought out redemption at the paladins request, he wouldn't have been as tempted by coin if someone asked him to turn a blind eye at the request to traffic illicit goods through his inn. He might have even informed the proper authority to keep the men from dealing as they do. He wouldn't have continued the gradual slide to true corruption that the first situation led to. This is all hypothetical, but not wholey unrealistic.

Citizen Joe
2007-11-02, 08:44 AM
The paladin is trying to redeem the man. Greed may be a lessor evil, but it can be a gateway evil. The man expressedly is interested in coin, especially easy, illgotten coin.
We don't know that he was a paladin, all we know is an armed man entered an in and started throwing accusations that you CANNOT get from detect evil in a state where evil is persecuted and hunted down. It doesn't matter if the so called paladin was intending to threaten the innkeeper, the innkeeper by virtue of glancing at the weapon WAS threatened.

We don't know what caused the evildar to ping. Maybe the innkeeper is evil, but we don't know if it was greed. Maybe he eats puppies? Maybe he hates the zealots of the flame because his last inn was burned to the ground because the hierarchy had a dyslexic scribe and transposed the address numbers before handing down the unquestioned orders.

Let's say the 'paladin' is right and the guy IS watering down drinks and charging extra. Maybe he believes that alcohol is the root of evil since it makes people do stupid things when they are drunk. So, by watering down the drinks, and charging extra, he can fund his own crusade to stop the evils of alcohol. When the 'paladin' retorts, he can point to the 'paladin's' sword and say "You kill evil things. Killing is evil. Sometimes you kill stuff that's in the way to the evil. At least I give them a chance to redeem themselves."

EDIT: Note also that there are three 'categories' in the hierarchy, Ministers, Templars and Friars. Ministers preach at estabilished church locations, Friars preach where the church hasn't be established yet, Templars protect the church. The favoured weapon should be the longbow. The guy showed up with a sword, not a bow. That makes me think Templar, not minister. Templars don't preach, they 'protect' and 'enforce'. If he showed up in a robe and maybe a walking stick. Then said something like "I sense a darkness in your soul. I would like to talk to you about it and show you the light." Then I could see the argument for trying to redeem. But if you show up with a sword and start with an accusation, that is picking a fight.

Keld Denar
2007-11-02, 09:13 AM
"You kill evil things. Killing is evil. Sometimes you kill stuff that's in the way to the evil. At least I give them a chance to redeem themselves."

As much as I hate to agree with the BoED, one thing in it that I agree with is that killing is not evil. Violence is not evil. Killing and violence are tools, as much as a gun or a sword is. A necessary tool when evil is wielding the same against you. Killing Evil Outsiders is ALWAYS a good act. Justified killing in self-defense, or in the defense of those who can not defend themselves is NOT evil, so long as it is justified and not in excess. A modern day police officer is not evil because he carries a gun, and one day, in an extreme situation, is forced to use it to kill another man to defend himself or another against someone commiting evil. I'm NOT saying kill everyone who blips positive on the Smitometer (TM), but just saying killing is evil is a gross overstatement.

The 'paladin' as you call him, IS giving the man a chance to redeem himself. His greed COULD lead him down a path that could cause others great harm. His intervention is justified. If I was the innkeep, I wouldn't want to do anything to incure the Silver Flames wrath, so I'd be more careful and not do anything sketchy, and probably think twice before engaging in anything MORE evil than cheating others for personal gain.

And there is probably little doubt that the 'paladin' is actually a paladin in service of the Silver Flame. These guys do a better job of announcing their presence than the British Army circa 1700. Between the tabard he is probably wearing, the insignia he's probably carrying, and appropriate documentation he probably has, there should be little doubt in the mind of the innkeeper that he is who he says he is. A con-man would be pretty ballsy to openly and falsely display membership in their elite organization. His chances of being discovered would be pretty great, and I'm sure these guys don't take kindly to people impersonating them.

Citizen Joe
2007-11-02, 09:39 AM
Oh, I don't think you can base evilness on killing either, but I did put it in quotes as something the innkeeper might believe.

We don't really have enough information to go on from the basic quote. But the way I read it, the paladin came off as a Templar. When Templar's come knocking, they don't really ask questions.

I think, if I were the innkeeper, and some PC paladin came in like that, I'd do something like this.

Sigh. "I see. You think I'm evil, but you don't know why. Honestly, I couldn't tell ya neither. We've all been through the War, son, and done things we ain't proud of. But we did them because they had to be done. You seem like you want to redeem me, but ain't neither one of us gonna be able to fix that lessen we know what be broke. So, here's what yer gonna do. Fer starters, yer gonna go put away that sword of yers cuz it ain't gonna do nuttin but bring up bad memories and ill will. Then, yer gonna come back tonight and have supper with me and mine. That'll let you know what makes life worth livin. Then, bright and early, we'll be up making sure this inn works smoothly. You'll get a first hand account of every thing I do, son. End of the day, we can talk after supper, if you ain't too tired. I figgers after 'bout a month, you ought know 'bout everything there is to know about me."

Keld Denar
2007-11-02, 10:00 AM
Sigh. "I see. You think I'm evil, but you don't know why. Honestly, I couldn't tell ya neither. We've all been through the War, son, and done things we ain't proud of. But we did them because they had to be done. You seem like you want to redeem me, but ain't neither one of us gonna be able to fix that lessen we know what be broke. So, here's what yer gonna do. Fer starters, yer gonna go put away that sword of yers cuz it ain't gonna do nuttin but bring up bad memories and ill will. Then, yer gonna come back tonight and have supper with me and mine. That'll let you know what makes life worth livin. Then, bright and early, we'll be up making sure this inn works smoothly. You'll get a first hand account of every thing I do, son. End of the day, we can talk after supper, if you ain't too tired. I figgers after 'bout a month, you ought know 'bout everything there is to know about me."

Interesting...although if the paladin really DID do that, he would probably find out that the innkeep really is watering down his ale, or something to that degree. Paladins, especially Silver Flame ones, probably have a decent degree of Sense Motive.

The claim that the innkeep is watering down his ale probably came down from the Hosteller's Guild, or might just have been grumbled about by patrons who believe they've been swindled. Selling something under false pretense is lying, which is a minor evil, especially when it is intended to aquire ill-gotten gains. That is only a symtom if the mans weak moral nature though. The man has potential to slide further into corruption, and that is what the paladin is trying to prevent.

I'll be honest, I know little about the organization outside of hearsay and the one Ebberon game I played. I know little of their structure, hierachy, or day-to-day responsibilities. In any game world though, with a similar organization, I would say that the paladin would be justified to act as he did. I think we are just a hair off origional topic though. Fun debate though!

Citizen Joe
2007-11-02, 10:13 AM
"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."


I translate this as:
1) I kill monsters without mercy
2) If you don't do what I say, I will consider you a monster
3) Obey me or die.
If that isn't lawful evil I don't know what is.
The paladin should have stopped at 'light.'

Mr.Moron
2007-11-02, 10:42 AM
I translate this as:
1) I kill monsters without mercy
2) If you don't do what I say, I will consider you a monster
3) Obey me or die.
If that isn't lawful evil I don't know what is.
The paladin should have stopped at 'light.'

You're stretching, and stretching hard for that interpretation. You're pulling those two lines out of the context of the rest of the paragraph, and even then going out of your way to take darkest possible meaning out of them.

In the latter of the two sentences the paladin uses the words "Perhaps" in reference to "being a monster after all", this is important. That last line is speculative, it's a possibility not something definite. It's very different from "You are a monster after all" or "You'll be a monster". Even using the only two lines you seem to want to pay any attention to, the paladin isn't making a concrete death threat. He is at worst saying "If you don't do what I say, there is a possibility that I'll have to kill you".

However, that's all kind of pointless. You can't just pull two sentences out of the reading and have an accurate picture. There are other clues to the paladin's intentions :
He never touches or motions towards his weapon, or makes any other threatening gesture. The story makes no mention of tone, so we must assume it's neutral, not hostile. As I said earlier, he "places" his hand on the mans shoulder, he doesn't grab him, he doesn't lean on him, he doesn't take an aggressive posture. Nothing about his behavior indicates an attempt to be threatening, except when you take only those two sentences and look at them as cynically as possible.

However the entire issue is pointless to argue! Go back and read the article, it becomes clear the intent of the whole thing was to paint a positive picture of the organization (or at least mostly positive). This means that regardless of interpretation, the intent of the story was portray Handor as a positive figure. So we can know that no matter how it sounds, those lines were not meant as a heavy-handed death threat, because that wouldn't be a very positive way to portray somebody. At that point it only becomes a matter of how effective the writer was, not what Handor was doing.

fendrin
2007-11-02, 10:45 AM
"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."

I translate this as:
1) I kill monsters without mercy
2) If you don't do what I say, I will consider you a monster
3) Obey me or die.
If that isn't lawful evil I don't know what is.
The paladin should have stopped at 'light.'

You can't take just bits and pieces... he doesn't say that his sword is for all fiends and monsters, only those that "that deserve neither reason nor mercy".

Of course we should also all keep in mind that professional ethicists can't create a universally agreeable ethical code, so how are we (or the game designers) supposed to do that for a world that has even more complicating factors than our own?

And without such a code, how can we rationally debate whether a particular person's actions crossed a line? We don't know where the line is. The best we can do is call it an ethical grey area.

Tren
2007-11-02, 10:52 AM
Where is this assumption coming from that the paladin is not actually a paladin? I think you're reading way too deeply for hidden context thats not there. We can take it as given that the warrior in the story is a paladin. By some means, ostensibly his Detect Evil, he KNOWS that the barkeep is evil. Not just greedy, he clearly states that he doesn't know what it is the barkeeper has done, but he is unequivocably certain that the barkeep's alignment is some form of evil.

Your hypothetical response from the barkeep would, I think, put him clearly into the realm of being neutral-- good people can do bad things, especially in war. But we know this is not the case. The barkeep is evil. We can infer that the barkeep is doing some sort of consistent, petty evil. Watering down his beer, racketeering, petty theft, whatever. But the paladin himself wonders about the exact nature of the barkeeps evil, wondering if i was even something worse?

Citizen Joe
2007-11-02, 10:57 AM
Well, how about we look at it this way. Innkeeper is minding his business and a paladin shows up and throws out an area effect spell (detect evil), some people consider that an attack. "He used magic against me." Next, the paladin threw around allegations that the innkeeper is harming his fellow citizens. That is an attack against his ability to do business. And then he did it AGAIN suggesting that he waters down the drinks and overcharges. I don't care what the paladin's intentions were, he just attacked the innkeeper (financially) which does not put anyone in a friendly mood. Threat or no, the innkeeper felt threatened, and given his shock from the accusation, he doesn't know why.

MCerberus
2007-11-02, 10:59 AM
Whether or not it was a threat depends totally on how the Paladin said it.

Citizen Joe
2007-11-02, 11:11 AM
Well, let me posit this as an evil person:

During the War, the innkeeper was a soldier and saw much of his family and lands etc. get killed/destroyed by let's say Brelanders. Now he has sworn an oath against Brelanders and would do anything he could to see them bleeding before him in a pool of their own filth. Due to an injury, lets say he lost his arm, he can't actively pursue this hatred, but if a Brelander ever showed up in his inn he would slit the guy's throat as he slept and dance maniacally on his grave.

Now, clearly he's not going to go to Breland and actively hunt them down. And he probably has a sign saying "We don't serve Brelish Scum!". However, he's not harming any citizens, and he may be putting as much money as he can into the widows and orphans fund. He's gonna ping as evil as soon as any soldier shows up and reminds him of the War.

illathid
2007-11-02, 11:31 AM
Well, let me posit this as an evil person:

During the War, the innkeeper was a soldier and saw much of his family and lands etc. get killed/destroyed by let's say Brelanders. Now he has sworn an oath against Brelanders and would do anything he could to see them bleeding before him in a pool of their own filth. Due to an injury, lets say he lost his arm, he can't actively pursue this hatred, but if a Brelander ever showed up in his inn he would slit the guy's throat as he slept and dance maniacally on his grave.

Now, clearly he's not going to go to Breland and actively hunt them down. And he probably has a sign saying "We don't serve Brelish Scum!". However, he's not harming any citizens, and he may be putting as much money as he can into the widows and orphans fund. He's gonna ping as evil as soon as any soldier shows up and reminds him of the War.

Ok, he's evil. What's your point?

The only way this changes the situation is that it means that the paladin probably should have been more inquisitive. However the paladin can't know that the innkeeper is committing murder without some evidence. Omniscience is not a requirement to be a paladin.

In fact, if that was the case, I think it shows that the paladin is acting correctly as he assumes that the man is not a skulking murderer, and tries to look on him as charitably as possible, given that the innkeeper is evil. I think many people would be justified in being harsher to those that detect as evil after a string of grisly murders. However, this paladin doesn't assume that merely because the man is evil, he must be eating babies or something.

Clearly the point of the excerpt is to show this:
Silver Flame Paladins = Good

Citizen Joe
2007-11-02, 11:46 AM
OK, just as a mental exercise, imagine a DND setting where detect (alignment) does not exist. Won't that solve all these debates?

You don't go after someone because they have some ill defined quality, you go after them because they do something that goes against your beliefs.

I would have much more respect for the paladin if he quietly took the innkeeper aside and said "I've been hearing reports that you've been watering down your drinks and charging extra. This is a sign of greed and a darkness that could consume your soul. I'd like you to speak to a minister about this as I am deeply concerned for your eternal soul."

Keld Denar
2007-11-02, 12:16 PM
Omniscience is not a requirement to be a paladin.

Man, would that ever make life easier though...the ability to smite people because you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt...everything.

Renegade Paladin
2007-11-02, 12:27 PM
Well, how about we look at it this way. Innkeeper is minding his business and a paladin shows up and throws out an area effect spell (detect evil), some people consider that an attack. "He used magic against me." Next, the paladin threw around allegations that the innkeeper is harming his fellow citizens. That is an attack against his ability to do business. And then he did it AGAIN suggesting that he waters down the drinks and overcharges. I don't care what the paladin's intentions were, he just attacked the innkeeper (financially) which does not put anyone in a friendly mood. Threat or no, the innkeeper felt threatened, and given his shock from the accusation, he doesn't know why.
I was getting the impression of a private conversation from the piece, not a loud general announcement. :smallannoyed:

Artanis
2007-11-02, 12:59 PM
Well, how about we look at it this way. Innkeeper is minding his business and a paladin shows up and throws out an area effect spell (detect evil), some people consider that an attack.
Detecting things is as much an attack as using your eyes to "detect" the color of a person's shirt. And last I checked, seeing that somebody was wearing a green shirt or whatever wasn't an attack.


"He used magic against me."
The only magic he used "against" the innkeeper was seeing whether or not he was EVIL. This is an important point: it doesn't matter whether the innkeeper was doing something the Paladin disagreed with, or doing something against the law, or even doing something wrong. He was objectively EVIL. He might've been the most model citizen in the history of Thrane, giving away all his money to charities and helping build houses for the homeless and giving free food to Paladins...but inside, he was STILL EVIL.


Next, the paladin threw around allegations that the innkeeper is harming his fellow citizens.
The Paladin questioned what form his evil might take. Remember, the Paladin knows, for a fact, that the innkeeper is objectively evil. Period. And as such, he was planning to - or at least wanting to - do something that was objectively evil at some point...if he wasn't, he'd be neutral or good pretty much by definition. The Paladin speculated as to what he might be doing and/or planning to do to get his attention that he knew that the innkeeper was, in his heart, objectively evil.


That is an attack against his ability to do business. And then he did it AGAIN suggesting that he waters down the drinks and overcharges. I don't care what the paladin's intentions were, he just attacked the innkeeper (financially) which does not put anyone in a friendly mood. Threat or no, the innkeeper felt threatened, and given his shock from the accusation, he doesn't know why.
He knows damned well why. The Paladin accused him of being evil, and he, by definition IS EVIL. If he wasn't evil, he wouldn't have pinged on the evildar. So HE IS EVIL. The Paladin accusing him of being evil is like me accusing you of using the forum name "Citizen Joe": a proven, undisputable fact. And the Paladin warned him of what the consequences of being evil might be...consequences over which that Paladin had little, if any, control.

tainsouvra
2007-11-02, 01:36 PM
He could be something like an epic Wizard with 9 INT. I don't buy it. If your argument against Detect Evil requires situations as asinine as a level 51+ Wizard with 9 Int, then that's more evidence proving how ridiculous your stance is than any reasonable person would need. Seriously, think about how far you're suspending disbelief to make that point.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-11-02, 01:47 PM
Detecting things is as much an attack as using your eyes to "detect" the color of a person's shirt. And last I checked, seeing that somebody was wearing a green shirt or whatever wasn't an attack.

Unless he only has red clearance, in which case he will be attacked.



The only magic he used "against" the innkeeper was seeing whether or not he was EVIL. This is an important point: it doesn't matter whether the innkeeper was doing something the Paladin disagreed with, or doing something against the law, or even doing something wrong. He was objectively EVIL. He might've been the most model citizen in the history of Thrane, giving away all his money to charities and helping build houses for the homeless and giving free food to Paladins...but inside, he was STILL EVIL.


The Paladin questioned what form his evil might take. Remember, the Paladin knows, for a fact, that the innkeeper is objectively evil. Period. And as such, he was planning to - or at least wanting to - do something that was objectively evil at some point...if he wasn't, he'd be neutral or good pretty much by definition. The Paladin speculated as to what he might be doing and/or planning to do to get his attention that he knew that the innkeeper was, in his heart, objectively evil.

According to the Fiendish Codex II, it's even more cut and dry. The book states that just having evil thoughs or fantasies or whatever are not enough to make you evil. Your alignment is Evil if you've actually commited (or are in the process of commiting) evil acts. In this case, the innkeeper definately went the whole nine-yards with some kind of evil, which is pretty clear cut.


He knows damned well why. The Paladin accused him of being evil, and he, by definition IS EVIL. If he wasn't evil, he wouldn't have pinged on the evildar. So HE IS EVIL. The Paladin accusing him of being evil is like me accusing you of using the forum name "Citizen Joe": a proven, undisputable fact. And the Paladin warned him of what the consequences of being evil might be...consequences over which that Paladin had little, if any, control.

The paladin also took the high road, and assumed that the innkeeper was 'evil lite'. For all the pally knew, the innkeeper could be a serial killer. I think this shows some character.

Cyclone231
2007-11-02, 01:50 PM
If your argument against Detect Evil requires situations as asinine as a level 51+ Wizard with 9 Int, then that's more evidence proving how ridiculous your stance is than any reasonable person would need. Seriously, think about how far you're suspending disbelief to make that point.
Here's a far better example:

The kindest, gentlest, most caring level eleven NG cleric of the Blood of Vol will have an aura of evil so powerful that it will stun any level 5 or below good-aligned person who cares to detect it.

This is because a cleric of an evil deity has an aura of evil, and given that the Blood of Vol worships an evil "deity", their clerics have an aura of evil which becomes overwhelming when they reach level 11.

Renegade Paladin
2007-11-02, 01:53 PM
Then why in the name of all that's holy would a NG cleric worship the Blood of Vol? I know Eberron has no mechanical alignment restrictions for deity followers or divine spellcasters, but come on. What is this hypothetical cleric's motivation for following an evil deity?

Neon Knight
2007-11-02, 01:57 PM
If your argument against Detect Evil requires situations as asinine as a level 51+ Wizard with 9 Int, then that's more evidence proving how ridiculous your stance is than any reasonable person would need. Seriously, think about how far you're suspending disbelief to make that point.

That was more of a casual hyperbole example anyway. A more practical one would be how a level 11th PC who kicks puppies for fun shows up as more evil than a level 1 commoner who murdered someone. The argument was that the evilness of the deed does not impact the strength of the aura, which is something I find bizarre.

Captain van der Decken
2007-11-02, 01:58 PM
Because even evil monsters need love?

Seriously though,


Despite the cult's overall evil alignment, there are many good-aligned members, who revere the undead as self-sacrificing champions in the war against death.


Don't ask me to explain that, though.

Cyclone231
2007-11-02, 02:09 PM
Then why in the name of all that's holy would a NG cleric worship the Blood of Vol? I know Eberron has no mechanical alignment restrictions for deity followers or divine spellcasters, but come on. What is this hypothetical cleric's motivation for following an evil deity?The Blood of Vol doesn't really have a deity. However, I can think of a good reason why a good person would belong to that religion: the deism/atheism of that setting. If the gods exist, then they are resigning each and every person to being slowly consumed from the inside out in Dolurrh. If they don't, every person is being slowly consumed from the inside out in Dolurrh.

One of the main points of the religion is to get people to "heaven" through the Divinity Within, unlike the other religions which offer your soul getting destroyed in Dolurrh (the Sovereign Host) or being completely absorbed into the Silver Flame (the Silver Flame). Honestly, the only reason that it's LE, insofar as I can determine, is because the upper echelons are filled with Evil characters. It's not as though becoming an undead is considered a good thing in it - it's a great sacrifice, the giving up of their chance at heaven in order to help others. It's a very individualistic religion which does not give "convert-or-die" commands, unlike the Silver Flame.

Shisumo
2007-11-02, 02:12 PM
The Blood of Vol argues that being dead pretty much sucks, and so the only way to avoid an eternity of (at best!) excruciating boredom is to turn to undeath to make it happen. Avoiding death is a good thing, and helping others do so is a genuine act of compassion - ergo, good people can be ardent beleivers in the Blood.

The problem is that pretty much all varieties of undead creation force an evil alignment on their subjects, and I don't think even Eberron's loose attitude toward alignment changes that... Frankly, I consider the metaphysical impact on alignment of animate dead and similar effects to be the only reason why you can tell the difference between the Blood and the Undying Court - and given the similarity between the two philosophies, it's not too hard to understand how the elves came to develop the one out of the other.

tainsouvra
2007-11-02, 03:31 PM
Here's a far better example:

The kindest, gentlest, most caring level eleven NG cleric of the Blood of Vol will have an aura of evil so powerful that it will stun any level 5 or below good-aligned person who cares to detect it.

This is because a cleric of an evil deity has an aura of evil, and given that the Blood of Vol worships an evil "deity", their clerics have an aura of evil which becomes overwhelming when they reach level 11. That would be an issue of whatever campaign setting allows a Neutral Good cleric to worship an evil diety. Core rules forbid it. The Detect Evil spell and alignment system were made with core rules in mind, not campaign-specific modifications.

fendrin
2007-11-02, 03:34 PM
Don't ask me to explain that, though.
Basically, The lich-queen, er, Vol created two distinct organizations

The Blood of Vol is only evil in the sense of their associations with Undead. Between that and the state sponsorship of Karrnath (and the lack of many clerics/paladins outside the ranks of adventurers), the evilness of tBoV goes largely overlooked. For that matter, the King of Karnnath is Evil too.

The Emerald Claw is a terrorist organization that is only loosely associated with the Blood of Vol. The only real association is that they serve Vol directly. Thus sometimes higher-ups in tBoV will aid them.

Note that though a Good cleric of tBoV will have an Evil aura, they will likely not be aware of it. Why would they cast the spell? It's really only used by adventurers. Oh, and given the animosity between Thrane (the theocratic nation ruled by the church of the Silver Flame) and Karrnath means that any Paladin with half a brain will keep to themselves in a Karrnathi inn.


That would be an issue of whatever campaign setting allows a Neutral Good cleric to worship an evil diety. Core rules forbid it. The Detect Evil spell and alignment system were made with core rules in mind, not campaign-specific modifications.
I really hope they implement deity (or better yet domain) specific spell lists for clerics in 4e.... with certain utility spells(like Cure spells) belonging to a 'universal' list that all clerics can cast.

PnP Fan
2007-11-02, 03:41 PM
Citizen Joe,
Um. . .I'm thinking that the discussion between the paladin and the innkeep is a quiet, semi-private discussion. The paladin only addresses the innkeep directly, not the "crowd of patrons", nor does he "throw allegations around" for others to hear.
The purpose of detect evil is more than just "to get'em". Redemption is an option for free willed creatures. One that the Paladin is attempting to offer. Turning away from redemption may result in negative conseqences. It has nothing to do with a "disagreement", it's quite clear from the text that the paladin isn't entirely sure what the innkeep has done wrong. He's even giving the innkeep the benefit of the doubt, and allowing that it's something fairly minor (remember, the paladin is only guessing at the innkeep's wrong). The inkeeper is panicking because he's afraid that redemption isn't an option any more. Indeed, the innkeep may not even know what he's done wrong. Not everyone has a strong moral compass. This nudge that the paladin gives him may be the thing to turn our innkeeper to the path of light. Oh, and notice he's talking about the path of Light, not the Path of the Silver Flame. He's not even trying to convert the guy to his own religion.
I seriously don't see what the problem is with his behavior.

Citizen Joe
2007-11-02, 06:45 PM
The Paladin questioned what form his evil might take. Remember, the Paladin knows, for a fact, that the innkeeper is objectively evil.
Detect evil doesn't do that. It detects evil auras. After a while, you can locate that aura. The innkeeper happened to be where an evil aura is. There are many ways for an evil aura to be around that do not involve being evil yourself.

Tren
2007-11-02, 06:54 PM
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.

The paladin can identify definitively where the evil is coming from, and how weak or strong of an aura it is. If you'd rule in your game that based on that description that a paladin could not identify specific people as being evil, that's your prerogative, but I think the overwhelming majority of people would say that is exactly how detect evil is meant to work. Besides, this is a flavor piece, it's not necessarily meant to be a direct representation of the mechanics, and based on the context throughout the story we are supposed to identify with the paladin as a good lawful person, trying to persuade the unscrupulous bartender to reconsider his life.

And seriously, whats with all the hating on paladins? Especially, in this case, a well played reasonable paladin?

"You don't want to sell me death sticks."
"... I don't want to sell you death sticks."
"You want to go home and rethink your life."
"I want to go home, and rethink my life!"

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-02, 06:55 PM
Ooh, star wars Mind trick ripoff. Niiiiiiiiiice.

bosssmiley
2007-11-03, 09:08 AM
In answer to the original question: the Silver Flame is one third evil.

No, seriously: the Silver flame = Tira Miron + the last Couatl + the Rakshasa rajah they imprisoned. Two good, one evil. This is even backed up in the ECS and "Five Nations" by talk of the Silver Flame whispering that its worshipper should do evil when it's in a bad mood.

:smallconfused:

Coat > Door > Cab

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-03, 10:25 AM
"You don't want to sell me death sticks."
"... I don't want to sell you death sticks."
"You want to go home and rethink your life."
"I want to go home, and rethink my life!"
Ah, but isn't superseding someone's free will through mind-altering magic unspeakably, baby-eating Evil? When a knight devoted to good and order does it, of course. We can't hold other classes to the same standard, because then we wouldn't have double standards.

(Note: I know this is a blatant straw man. Please don't take it seriously. I'm not.)

PaladinBoy
2007-11-03, 03:08 PM
Detect evil doesn't do that. It detects evil auras. After a while, you can locate that aura. The innkeeper happened to be where an evil aura is. There are many ways for an evil aura to be around that do not involve being evil yourself.

Then isn't it a good thing that we have a paladin that's willing to give the innkeeper the benefit of the doubt? What's the alternative, to kill him?

Oh, right, here's your alternative.

I would have much more respect for the paladin if he quietly took the innkeeper aside and said "I've been hearing reports that you've been watering down your drinks and charging extra. This is a sign of greed and a darkness that could consume your soul. I'd like you to speak to a minister about this as I am deeply concerned for your eternal soul."

Except that that was, essentially, exactly what the paladin did! His god reported the innkeeper's evil, through the spell. The paladin made a few assumptions about how an innkeeper would be evil (which is where the greed stuff came from, I presume), and asked the innkeeper what his sin was. And I do agree with some other posters that this felt more like a private conversation to me, not a loud accusatory speech. He told the guy to find a minister and redemption. The only difference is the death threat....... and really, given the presence of detect evil, none of that was false. Irredeemable evil might make the guy a bit of a monster, but even then, he might not be one of the "fiends and monsters that deserve neither reason nor mercy". So the death threat was more like, "If you are irredeemable evil, then I might have to kill you."

As death threats go, I've seen worse. I do think that the paladin shouldn't have said that, but I don't think he's evil for doing so.

And if there is a mistake and the paladin is falsely reading an evil aura, then there's nothing stopping the innkeeper from saying that and requesting for more checking. Doing that in a disrespectful manner might put the paladin on guard, but if there's nothing to be found, then he's not going to find anything, and then there isn't really a problem, is there.


OK, just as a mental exercise, imagine a DND setting where detect (alignment) does not exist. Won't that solve all these debates?

Except, in that situation, the paladin wouldn't have caught the innkeeper at all. Removing detecting spells removes some amount of the paladin's effectiveness...... he'll still be able to fight major evil, but his chances of stopping minor evils like this innkeeper as he passes through town on his way to the next demon infestation would be minimal. The paladin doesn't have to be nice about stopping evil........ in fact, he's already being very nice, in showing mercy to evil.