Evil character wielding an holy weapon for a Good purpose

[Samael Morgenst]

Let's suppose there is that Chaotic Evil mercenary.
He's a sinner, a drunkard, a lustful man that paid prostitutes, gambled, brawled and stealed.

But he's not completely heartless and now he's defending a church filled with innocents, mostly women and children. He's ready to give his own life for them. To face the fiends attacking the church, he needs a powerful weapon but the weapon he can use is an Holy, Good aligned sword.

So he prays , with genuine intent, the Good deity of that church to forgive his misdeeds just temporarily, so he can defend those innocents, and grabs the holy sword.

Should he receive the negative levels?

[Buufreak]

Yes. Plus filler.

[Crake]

Yes. Plus filler.

Well, not so fast. The atonement spell exists, and could feasably change the character’s alignment to good in that moment, cast as a blessing to the character as a divine act by the deity.

It would require literal divine intervention, but its POSSIBLE that they would have an alignment change and be able to wield the holy weapon without penalty.

But it wouldnt happen just because the character wanted it do, and I imagine he would recieve a geas of some kind to prove his devotion to this new alignment.

If he only wanted temporary reprieve, and intends to return to his old ways afterwards, I dont see a god granting him such a boon, rather just send down an angel to do the work

Actually, another option might be celestial channeling, sending in an angel to possess him, and wield the sword through him, as sort of a middle ground between the two.

As an aside, based on the description, i would probably categorise him as chaotic neutral, not really evil. Maybe some minor evil tendencies, but just seems like his biggest crimes are succumbing to vice, not really evil. Sinful maybe, but not evil

[Inevitability]

Let's flip it around: this guy is standing bravely in defense of innocents, ready to endanger, perhaps to sacrifice, his own life so they have a chance of survival: why wouldn't he be Good?

If your answer is 'because of all the evil in his past', then consider that D&D doesn't seem to care about evil in one's past, not necessarily. As in, there's certainly no innate contradiction between having lots of unrepented-for evil in one's past and being nonevil. Some examples:

-The FCII rules for corruption points make clear that a character might have done enough evil to be condemned to Hell upon death while still being Lawful Good. The existence of hellbred points to the same.

-Magical alignment-changing effects (and nonmagical ones, like Divine Agent's level 8 feature) switch alignment around without altering a character's history.

-The BoED makes mention of a character (the first sample exalted NPC) whose conversion to good happened quite suddenly as a result of a mindset shift rather than a good deed, and who before this event seemed to have been more of a neutral ally with a shady past.

-A good character who commits a single sufficiently evil act may suddenly fall to evil, regardless of all past Good done.


In short, a single drastic deed of self-sacrifice and altruism should be able to render a previously-evil character good or at least neutral. There's some caveats - such a character might certainly be in a more precarious position alignment-wise, and might without further effort still be destined for an Evil afterlife, but for short-term worldly effects, I don't see why a genuine act so opposed to a Chaotic Evil alignment could not serve to set a character on the path to redemption.

[Morphic tide]

Heroes of Horror page 76-77 gives an option that'd make this pretty much the norm, in Behavioral Alignment. Under that, Alignment is a property of in-the-moment intentions and actions rather than a running tally, resulting in Alignment mechanics typically being temporary. It'd mean that you only suffer negative levels from an opposite-alignment weapon property while in the middle of acting so contrary, which would be the brawling and theft. Maybe the prostitutes depending on how forceful he was and potentially on if the pimp/madam is harsh enough about it to constitute sexual slavery.

Strangely enough, the Alignment rules seem to treat vices as more of a Law/Chaos thing than a Good/Evil one. The Exalted Vows covering a lot of vices seems to be a matter of self-sacrifice being Good rather than doing near-fatal amounts of drugs being necessarily Evil.

[Inevitability]

Strangely enough, the Alignment rules seem to treat vices as more of a Law/Chaos thing than a Good/Evil one. The Exalted Vows covering a lot of vices seems to be a matter of self-sacrifice being Good rather than doing near-fatal amounts of drugs being necessarily Evil.

The BoVD seems pretty unsubtle about the whole 'Drugs are Evil' thing, doesn't it?

[Samael Morgenst]

If he only wanted temporary reprieve, and intends to return to his old ways afterwards, I dont see a god granting him such a boon, rather just send down an angel to do the work


He'll probably not survive long enough to return to his old ways afterwards and he knows it.
He's buying the innocents time to flee, at the cost of his own life.


Maybe the prostitutes depending on how forceful he was and potentially on if the pimp/madam is harsh enough about it to constitute sexual slavery.
Errr, no, no. He isn't an abuser. But he attended brothels, which is immoral.

[spectralphoenix]

I'd say it really depends on his outlook going forward. Is he a changed man? If he does miraculously survive the fight, will he go off and murder someone to blow off steam? It's absolutely possible to be an evil man who occasionally does good deeds. A racist swordsman who heroically defends humans but murders elves for sport isn't good when he's doing good and evil when he's doing evil. Neither is the lolrandom chaotic who just happened to roll "00 - Paladin for the Day". He can change instantly, without "paying off the debt," but he has to actually change, not just be the same guy who happens to be doing good in this instance.

[Samael Morgenst]

I'd say it really depends on his outlook going forward. Is he a changed man? If he does miraculously survive the fight, will he go off and murder someone to blow off steam?

No, but he'll probabably storm to the nearest inn for an alcholic orgy to celebrate his survival.

From the Book of Vile Darkness, page 41:


Addiction Rating: Drugs are rated according to their addictive potential. For example, many popular stimulant drinks
have a negligible addiction rating, but have addictive qualities all the same

According to the game rules, alcholic beverages are considered drugs. Drugs and addictions are considered Evil.


To quote Dragon Magazine, which is the official d&d magazine:


Temptation and
Redemption Points

Part of walking the path of good is
resisting rhe temptation to do evil things
and successfully putting such thoughts
out of one's mind. Fighting rhe urges that
come naturally* conflicted individuals try
to do the right thing, offering compas¬
sion* mercy, and generosity to others.
Most shun the things and people that
enabled their bad behavior, making it
almost impossible to return to rhe old
way of life. However* rhe things that evil
people avoid while trying lo redeem
themselves are the same temptations
that bring good people down.


As a way of keeping track of the good
and evil that a conflicted character com¬
mits during his life* the DM can use an
optional rule to find out if their align¬
ment should shift to one more befitting
rhe characters actions* To do this* the
DM makes use of two different types of
points that track rhe good and evil
actions of a character-temptation points
and redemption points. The seven deadly
sins listed above can be used as guide¬
lines to help the DM determine if and
when a character should acquire one of
these points. As rhe character gains
these points, rhe character's alignment
can shift toward good or evil.

Temptation points can be gained when
a character willingly performs an evil
act. This could be something as oven as
murder* theft* unprovoked assault* and
rhe like, or something more subtle such
as telling a tie when falsehood is unnec¬
essary* Each temptation point pushes the
character closer to evil*


*General Temptations and DC temptation check*


Lied, cheated, or stole when it was unnecessary 10

Succumbed to an addiction (drugs, evil magic, or alcohol) 15

*Prideful Actions*

Excessive boasting DC 10

*Lustful Action*

Acted in a lewd manner DC 10

*Ignored more important matters for satisfy his lust* DC 15




This man is constantly bragging about his strenght and feats, constantly ogling the inn maids, visits brothels, gets drunk and gambles away what he earns as a mercenary.

According to the rules, he's Evil. Not *Vile* evil because he don't murder innocents, torture, rape or the like, but still Evil.

[Morphic tide]

The BoVD seems pretty unsubtle about the whole 'Drugs are Evil' thing, doesn't it?
Given that the spells for forcing addiction and producing Liquid Pain do not have the [Evil] descriptor, it seems to be included as a pull factor furnishing the temptations rather than being Evil itself.

[OracleofWuffing]

Well, at least he paid the prostitutes, instead of trying to take their services for free... But that's more of a lawful thing than a good thing.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

No, but he'll probabably storm to the nearest inn for an alcholic orgy to celebrate his survival.

From the Book of Vile Darkness, page 41:


Addiction Rating: Drugs are rated according to their addictive potential. For example, many popular stimulant drinks
have a negligible addiction rating, but have addictive qualities all the same

According to the game rules, alcholic beverages are considered drugs. Drugs and addictions are considered Evil.Shouldn't dwarves be Lawful Evil, then?

[icefractal]

I wouldn't look to the BoVD / BoED as good sources for alignment if you're trying to take it seriously. They operate on a somewhat ascetic morality which isn't appropriate for a setting that has good-aligned gods with hedonic portfolios, which most D&D settings are.

Most of the BoED Vows would make more sense as Lawful things - not because the things they bar are inherently Chaotic, but because "maintaining a strict code for no purpose other than to uphold your devotion" seems like a Lawful thing to do.

[Buufreak]

No, but he'll probabably storm to the nearest inn for an alcholic orgy to celebrate his survival.



So he didn't change. He just did a single selfless thing for... some reason that doesn't appear apparent or in character, and afterward would go back to being a bastard almost immediately.

I stick with my original answer. Yes, penalty for touching the holy weapon incurred.

[Crake]

According to the game rules, alcholic beverages are considered drugs. Drugs and addictions are considered Evil.

Don’t conflate the fact that drugs are in the bovd with the notion that all drugs = evil.

If you actually go through and read the drug rules, youll see that at no point are drugs mentioned as being inherently evil. There are some drugs that are created through vile means, like torture, or killing fey, or one is even made from plants that grow in the abyss, but plenty of others have perfectly mundane and non-evil origins.

But nothing about the use of a nonspecific drug in general is ever stated as being evil.

As for the dragon magazine stuff, a lot of people dont use dragon magazine, because its not actually written by wotc, but even if it was, that temptation points thing looks… really dumb

[Darg]

Let's suppose there is that Chaotic Evil mercenary.
He's a sinner, a drunkard, a lustful man that paid prostitutes, gambled, brawled and stealed.

But he's not completely heartless and now he's defending a church filled with innocents, mostly women and children. He's ready to give his own life for them. To face the fiends attacking the church, he needs a powerful weapon but the weapon he can use is an Holy, Good aligned sword.

So he prays , with genuine intent, the Good deity of that church to forgive his misdeeds just temporarily, so he can defend those innocents, and grabs the holy sword.

Should he receive the negative levels?

Then you should really ask if they are truly chaotic evil. He perfectly fits the definition of someone not evil because an evil person wouldn't care about "innocents" in any way. At most it would be more like they're property or necessary for a livelihood.

I'd actually argue this person is chaotic neutral. To have genuine intent and actual understanding of the gravity of their sins in a way that would be repentant enough for gods to care would definitely warrant an alignment shift from evil.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Then you should really ask if they are truly chaotic evil. He perfectly fits the definition of someone not evil because an evil person wouldn't care about "innocents" in any way. At most it would be more like they're property or necessary for a livelihood.

I'd actually argue this person is chaotic neutral. To have genuine intent and actual understanding of the gravity of their sins in a way that would be repentant enough for gods to care would definitely warrant an alignment shift from evil.I've had an Evil (albeit Lawful) character who actually fit in quite well with a Good-aligned group, because he usually would be among the first to insist that the party help innocent bystanders, generally if violence was involved.

However, it was because he had traumas in his past that he couldn't get over, rather than some innate sense of right and wrong, and he thoroughly enjoyed visiting his "revenge" on victimizers to sate the rage bubbling below the surface. He was very much a sadist and enjoyed watching other evil people suffer.

He was just smart and wise enough to direct that hate and sadism on people he felt deserved it, and "helping the innocent" was a good outlet for that.

He did like animals and was tolerant of small children, however, and was especially protective of them.

[Duke of Urrel]

Let's suppose there is that Chaotic Evil mercenary.
He's a sinner, a drunkard, a lustful man that paid prostitutes, gambled, brawled and stealed.

But he's not completely heartless and now he's defending a church filled with innocents, mostly women and children. He's ready to give his own life for them. To face the fiends attacking the church, he needs a powerful weapon but the weapon he can use is an Holy, Good aligned sword.

So he prays , with genuine intent, the Good deity of that church to forgive his misdeeds just temporarily, so he can defend those innocents, and grabs the holy sword.

Should he receive the negative levels?

I agree with all the others who say "Yes." You cannot wipe away a long habit of doing Evil with one single unquestionably Good deed. The will to do Good is very nice, but it's not real until after you put it into action. So if this mercenary really wants to take up the Holy sword and fight the fiends (are they at least Lawful rather than Chaotic?), then he has to take the negative levels when he does it.

But can't an Evil mercenary repent and change into a Good one? To this, I say "Yes" again. But in order to become Good (and in order to receive an Atonement spell from a cleric that will actually work), you have to be serious. And nobody, no Good cleric and no Good deity, is going to take a life-long Chaotic-Evil mercenary at his word. They are going to demand proof. But in order to prove that you're serious, you have to be willing to be tested.

What kind of test would be appropriate? I don't know, but how about this: Take up a Holy sword and defend a church full of innocent people against murderous fiends in spite of having to suffer negative levels while you do it. This is the test, should you choose to accept it.

I can actually hear a Good cleric uttering these very words and demanding this heroic act as proof of worthiness of Atonement. (And you have to promise, for the rest of your life, never to revert to Evil again, and when you promise this, you have to mean it, no bluffing!) Good clerics are not fools, and neither are their deities.


Post-Script: Hmmm. I just thought of something. Good clerics and their deities may just brush you off, but what about a Chaotic-Neutral deity? What if you went to a cleric of Olidammara and made a deal? Could a cleric of Olidammara remove the taint of Evil from your soul without having to make you all the way Good? I don't have a preconceived judgement about this. It's worth considering.

Post-Post-Script: Here's another thing. Your alignment is not like the weather. It's more like the climate of your soul. Alignment change is not like a sudden change of the weather, like a sudden break of the sun through the clouds. It's more like climate change. Evil creatures may not commit Evil acts continually, all the time, without interruption, and they may not spend all of their free time scheming to do even more Evil. They may take breaks. Heck, they may even take vacations. (Laziness is perfectly compatible with Evil.) But this doesn't mean that Evil creatures turn non-Evil while they're on vacation.

[Crake]

Post-Script: Hmmm. I just thought of something. Good clerics and their deities may just brush you off, but what about a Chaotic-Neutral deity? What if you went to a cleric of Olidammara and made a deal? Could a cleric of Olidammara remove the taint of Evil from your soul without having to make you all the way Good? I don't have a preconceived judgement about this. It's worth considering.

Considering that atonement brings you to the alignment of the caster, I’d say the answer is unequivocally yes.

[Duke of Urrel]

Considering that atonement brings you to the alignment of the caster, I’d say the answer is unequivocally yes.

I tentatively agree that Olidammara is capable of expunging Evil from your soul, since he is not himself Evil. (Some will insist that to really get rid of Evil, you need the power of Good, just as you cannot rid yourself of Chaos except with the power of Law.)


But although Olidammara is not Good, he is no fool either. Also, he is not particularly generous (unless he's in that kind of mood), and he is not overly interested in making Evil people non-Evil (or Good people non-Good). Besides, Olidammara has a reputation to maintain as a semi-honorable scoundrel. If he did too many favors for Chaotic-Evil mercenaries – and then they went on to betray him later – then he would start to look both biased and foolish, which would undermine the success of his future trickery – and he is canny enough to be well aware of this pitfall. Olidammara has to balance out his favors for Evil supplicants with some favors for Good supplicants in order to keep his scams going, and he may regard this as too much of a headache. Instead of involving himself in too many Atonements one way or the other*, I think Olidammara prefers just to get drunk** and have fun.

Olidammara's clerics, for their part, will probably just let some Divination spell decide what Olidammara's will is. The trickster god's will may well change from day to day (or even from hour to hour), but he probably won't appreciate being asked repeatedly for the same favor by the same person over and over again, because, you know, he's got parties to attend.

___________________
*By "one way or the other," I mean with respect to Good or Evil. If some Lawful person came to Olidammara begging him to make them Chaotic, he would be very interested.

**I agree with people who say that drinking alcohol – in moderation, sure! – is not Evil by itself, though it would be harder to argue that it was compatible with Lawfulness (unless you raise the moderation up to eleven). As evidence for this, I offer you the dwarven god Hanseath, god of "carousing and barbarians," who is Chaotic-Neutral, not Evil.

[Ignimortis]

Let's suppose there is that Chaotic Evil mercenary.
He's a sinner, a drunkard, a lustful man that paid prostitutes, gambled, brawled and stealed.

But he's not completely heartless and now he's defending a church filled with innocents, mostly women and children. He's ready to give his own life for them.

How is that Chaotic Evil, again? The whole point of alignment being descriptive rather than prescriptive, this man doesn't sound like an evil person, just someone without a strong moral compass or code in his regular life. Paying for negotiable affection, drinking, gambling, brawling, and even stealing (depending on the target) do not automatically make you evil. If anything, the guy sounds like Chaotic Neutral, or even some very rowdy variant of Chaotic Good since he is willing to lay down his life to protect innocents. A less-polished swashbuckler hero could generally fit into your description while still being noble enough of spirit to qualify as Good, and I don't think anyone would bat an eye if this were supposed to be a Chaotic Neutral character.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

How is that Chaotic Evil, again? The whole point of alignment being descriptive rather than prescriptive, this man doesn't sound like an evil person, just someone without a strong moral compass or code in his regular life. Paying for negotiable affection, drinking, gambling, brawling, and even stealing (depending on the target) do not automatically make you evil. If anything, the guy sounds like Chaotic Neutral, or even some very rowdy variant of Chaotic Good since he is willing to lay down his life to protect innocents. A less-polished swashbuckler hero could generally fit into your description while still being noble enough of spirit to qualify as Good, and I don't think anyone would bat an eye if this were supposed to be a Chaotic Neutral character.Does anyone else here realize that this describes Batman rather well? Between his Bruce Wayne persona and his Batman identity, he does a lot of the more "questionable" things described above.

Think about it for a minute.

[Ignimortis]

Does anyone else here realize that this describes Batman rather well? Between his Bruce Wayne persona and his Batman identity, he does a lot of the more "questionable" things described above.

Think about it for a minute.

batman-alignment-chart-meme.jpg

And, because he's Batman, the holy sword would not give him negative levels. Some writers would even pull the "in fact, Batman can unlock the sword's hidden powers because he's so awesome and cool" schtick.

[Baroncognito]

My first instinct is that a standard Holy Sword doesn't know what's going on. It has a magical field that detects alignment in some fashion and that magic does one thing if it's being wielded by evil and one thing if it damages evil. It cannot react to the situation because it's not really there.

An intelligent holy weapon, I think, could potentially be bargained with.

[Curse]

The moment the character touches the sword in order to wield it (or mabe before the game if possible) I would ask the player what motivation the character has to be in this situation. What are the actual thoughts of the character?
If the character had an epiphany and is genuinely defending innocents I don't think he should get negative levels.
If the character is still on track and e.g. just wants to use the sword as the most potent weapon in range while not caring about other people, I think he should get negative levels.
(Under the assumption that the character has actually been evil so far. If he is not evil the situation is solved anyways).
As DM and player you are in the fortunate situation that you can actually talk about the real in-game motivation without deception being a factor (as long as the player will not lie about his character as that would be a completely different issue).

[Satinavian]

Evil characters can do the occasional good deed without stopping being evil.
Evil Characters do get the negative level.

Gods actually answering prayers and changing the properties of weapons on a whim is something a GM could do. But i generally would not. Actual wonders should be something extremely rare. For everything else gods have their clerics.

[El Dorado]

Is the weapon intelligent? Does the weapon have a special purpose? Those factors could add more wrinkles to the interaction.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Just a thought, but hitting the character with a negative level is actually punishing him for doing a good deed and discouraging him from being a better person.

[Buufreak]

Just a thought, but hitting the character with a negative level is actually punishing him for doing a good deed and discouraging him from being a better person.

As RAW intended, as it should always be. Praise be to RAW.

[Crake]

And, because he's Batman, the holy sword would not give him negative levels. Some writers would even pull the "in fact, Batman can unlock the sword's hidden powers because he's so awesome and cool" schtick.

I mean, I wouldn't be surprised that batman has UMD ranks, and just used the emulate an alignment function of UMD to fake a good alignment, surely not that difficult for him.

[Arkhios]

There is a Holy Weapon and an Unholy Weapon, and I'm pretty sure "an Holy" falls closer to the latter as a combination of words, not swords.

Yours truly,
Paladin of the Sacred Oath of Grammar


(sorry, couldn't resist)

[Samael Morgenst]

I corrected the title, albeit it is considered extremely rude to publicly correct a foreigner's grammar, there are private messages for this.

[Arkhios]

I corrected the title, albeit it is considered extremely rude to publicly correct a foreigner's grammar, there are private messages for this.

Is it, though? English isn't native to me either. My apologies if you took that as an insult. It was a tongue-in-cheek quip, nothing serious.

[Chronos]

Aside: There's a hypothetical scenario I'm fond of. A town received a prophecy that they would someday be destroyed and overrun by undead, and so the townsfolk pooled their resources to obtain a weapon that could be used against that prophesied horde: A holy undead-bane (insert any other relevant properties here) mace that they kept prominently in the town square, so that, in need, any hero willing to stand forth could be armed to fight against the darkness.

Until one day, an evil person grabbed the mace out of curiosity, and so gained a negative level, and unfortunately the evil person was first level, and anyone with as many negative levels as levels instantly dies. And when someone dies as a result of negative levels, unless the effect that conferred the negative levels says otherwise, they then rise as a wight...

[icefractal]

Lol, true. I mean, I think most GMs would spot-rule that Holy weapons don't create undead, but that is technically how it works. And it seems plenty fitting for Unholy weapons to do that, making "leave Unholy swords around disguised as emergency Holy swords" something a particularly rich villain might do.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

And ANY living creature that dies due to negative levels returns as a wight.

So all those pigs that got hit by the Fell Drain fireball? They're now the other wight meat.

[SangoProduction]

So. I think the core issue that came up a couple times: Is this guy even Evil? He's certainly immoral. But he's not self-centered enough to let a bunch of orphans die, choosing instead to fight to defend them, with the known potential of death. And in fact, despite not being his normal disposition, nor a situation that he'd presumably actively put himself into, or seek out (again, presumably), these are not the actions that someone who has truly earned the Evil alignment would do.

So, if he's not properly Evil, then he wouldn't get the penalties of being Evil.


But let's *make* him a properly Evil character that simply got into the situation. He was taking a shower in the orphanage, when it got surrounded by zombies. He's not got his own weapons, and no one else is willing to stay behind. If no one stays behind, everyone dies one way or another. Seeing no other options, he takes the holy blade, and walks into the horde to face his demise and perhaps give them a chance to escape.

...Although clearly not done out of the goodness of his heart, it is a major personal sacrifice, including that of his own life, potentially. And it's done with the knowledge that his demise would give the others room to leave.

I don't know how that wouldn't be an act of redemption for all but the most vile of characters.


Now, a substantially more evil character would perhaps be hamstringing the orphans and hope that the zombies feast on them long enough to get out. Except that they don't have their weapons on them. Best they'd be able to do is to do it with the holy blade. Which would be rather ironic.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

So. I think the core issue that came up a couple times: Is this guy even Evil? He's certainly immoral. But he's not self-centered enough to let a bunch of orphans die, choosing instead to fight to defend them, with the known potential of death. And in fact, despite not being his normal disposition, nor a situation that he'd presumably actively put himself into, or seek out (again, presumably), these are not the actions that someone who has truly earned the Evil alignment would do.

So, if he's not properly Evil, then he wouldn't get the penalties of being Evil.


But let's *make* him a properly Evil character that simply got into the situation. He was taking a shower in the orphanage, when it got surrounded by zombies. He's not got his own weapons, and no one else is willing to stay behind. If no one stays behind, everyone dies one way or another. Seeing no other options, he takes the holy blade, and walks into the horde to face his demise and perhaps give them a chance to escape.

...Although clearly not done out of the goodness of his heart, it is a major personal sacrifice, including that of his own life, potentially. And it's done with the knowledge that his demise would give the others room to leave.

I don't know how that wouldn't be an act of redemption for all but the most vile of characters.


Now, a substantially more evil character would perhaps be hamstringing the orphans and hope that the zombies feast on them long enough to get out. Except that they don't have their weapons on them. Best they'd be able to do is to do it with the holy blade. Which would be rather ironic.My character that I outlined earlier would have defended the orphanage, despite being very firmly Evil, so it's entirely possible for an Evil person to perform such an action. He would have been mocking the monsters and tearing them apart while laughing maniacally, but he would've done it, and specifically to save the kids, to boot.

Though he was a primary psionic manifester/skillmonkey, so one of his TN astral constructs would've used it instead, but still.

[Darg]

I don't know how that wouldn't be an act of redemption for all but the most vile of characters.

It's not redemption unless they are doing it out of a genuine desire to be good. Just performing a good act doesn't make someone not evil.


And ANY living creature that dies due to negative levels returns as a wight.

So all those pigs that got hit by the Fell Drain fireball? They're now the other wight meat.

The text is so vague that if I get enervated to death by an elf wizard, I'm allowed to rise as an elf the next night. Want a permanent race change? Get negative leveled to death by a creature of the race you want to be.

[Samael Morgenst]

So. I think the core issue that came up a couple times: Is this guy even Evil? He's certainly immoral. But he's not self-centered enough to let a bunch of orphans die, choosing instead to fight to defend them, with the known potential of death. And in fact, despite not being his normal disposition, nor a situation that he'd presumably actively put himself into, or seek out (again, presumably), these are not the actions that someone who has truly earned the Evil alignment would do.

Well, the person I described would MABYE not be considered evil by normal , real world standards, just vice ridden. But according to a strict interpretation of d&d 3.5 rules, yes, he's evil aligned. Not Vile evil, but still below the morality bar.

[Rynjin]

I tentatively agree that Olidammara is capable of expunging Evil from your soul, since he is not himself Evil. (Some will insist that to really get rid of Evil, you need the power of Good, just as you cannot rid yourself of Chaos except with the power of Law.)


But although Olidammara is not Good, he is no fool either. Also, he is not particularly generous (unless he's in that kind of mood), and he is not overly interested in making Evil people non-Evil (or Good people non-Good). Besides, Olidammara has a reputation to maintain as a semi-honorable scoundrel. If he did too many favors for Chaotic-Evil mercenaries – and then they went on to betray him later – then he would start to look both biased and foolish, which would undermine the success of his future trickery – and he is canny enough to be well aware of this pitfall. Olidammara has to balance out his favors for Evil supplicants with some favors for Good supplicants in order to keep his scams going, and he may regard this as too much of a headache. Instead of involving himself in too many Atonements one way or the other*, I think Olidammara prefers just to get drunk** and have fun.

Olidammara's clerics, for their part, will probably just let some Divination spell decide what Olidammara's will is. The trickster god's will may well change from day to day (or even from hour to hour), but he probably won't appreciate being asked repeatedly for the same favor by the same person over and over again, because, you know, he's got parties to attend.

___________________
*By "one way or the other," I mean with respect to Good or Evil. If some Lawful person came to Olidammara begging him to make them Chaotic, he would be very interested.

**I agree with people who say that drinking alcohol – in moderation, sure! – is not Evil by itself, though it would be harder to argue that it was compatible with Lawfulness (unless you raise the moderation up to eleven). As evidence for this, I offer you the dwarven god Hanseath, god of "carousing and barbarians," who is Chaotic-Neutral, not Evil.

You basically just need to convince Olidammara it'd be funny and he'll do pretty much anything for you though, on the flipside.

[Crake]

But according to a strict interpretation of d&d 3.5 rules, yes, he's evil aligned. Not Vile evil, but still below the morality bar.


Good Vs. Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

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

That's what the dnd 3.5 rules have to say about evil.


Law Vs. Chaos

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"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.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

And that's what it has to say about chaos.

The character you described is reckless, does what he feels like, is irresponsible with regards to his vices, but does not hurt, oppress, or kill others, nor does he debase or destroy innocent life in any manner.

"According to a strict interpretation of d&d 3.5 rules", he is chaotic, but not evil.

Again, don't conflate the fact that there is a drugs section in the BoVD with the notion that drugs themselves are evil. There are drugs listed in there that definitely have evil origins, but the BoVD never explicitly calls drugs as a whole evil.

Hell, drug's aren't even chaotic, they are simply a tool, and as with all tools, it depends on how you use them. Having some alcohol after a long day's work to calm down and relax - neutral. Getting stonefaced drunk, coming home and beating your wife - evil. Smoking the devilweed when it's outlawed in your region because screw the police - chaotic. I can't really think of any good uses of drugs, bar maybe using it to ease the suffering of someone in chronic pain maybe.

The only circumstances I can think of where giving in to your vices would be evil is if a) you act violently toward innocent people when intoxicated, but not while sober (if you act violently toward people while sober, then the drugs aren't affecting the status quo after all, so the drug use itself doesn't really carry any moral weight to it), or b) your spiralling addiction is ruining the lives of those around you, not just your own, and thus comes under the "hurting other people" clause of evil.

[hamishspence]

He "brawls" which could easily involve picking fights with innocent people when drunk and hurting them, even if he doesn't kill them.

[wilphe]

Just a thought, but hitting the character with a negative level is actually punishing him for doing a good deed and discouraging him from being a better person.

Indeed.

I would not have him suffer a negative level for using it. In fact the opposite, I would have him feel that Doing Good Feels Good, for the duration of the combat.

Now if he wants to keep using it afterwards, well let us tell you the Good News About Our Lord and Saviour Pelor

Please read this pamphlet on "Atonement and You"

[Kish]

By the SRD's alignment descriptions, this guy is clearly not Evil. As already quoted:

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Not one word of that fits him. So by core he's clearly Neutral at worst. Non-core sources, particularly dark and vile ones, which say stupid stuff can bite me.

(If Samael wants to rephrase "gets into drunken brawls" into something involving sadistic brutality, that might change, but they seem to have been pretty focused on "substance abuser and thus evil.")

[Samael Morgenst]

He "brawls" which could easily involve picking fights with innocent people when drunk and hurting them, even if he doesn't kill them.

Only robust men, he never hit a woman (well, a civilian woman - amazonian fighters and barbarian female halforcs are a lecit exception) or an elder, or a youngling. And he don't kick unconscious foes when they're down.

But yes, getting drunk according to that Dragon Magazine issue about Temptation Point is still considered a minor evil act, as it is brawling, and when they become radicated habits they slowly lead to the (weakly) Evil alignment.

Not enough to *ping* a detect evil spell mabye, for sure no Evil aura, but the alignment is still that.


(If Samael wants to rephrase "gets into drunken brawls" into something involving sadistic brutality, that might change, but they seem to have been pretty focused on "substance abuser and thus evil.")

Well, Evil do not means necessarily to be sadistical, murderous monsters. I guess that most often it involves a moral weakness, a degree of selfishness and self indulgence that lead to harmful behavior. At least I read the game that way. I can be excessive.

[icefractal]

Whether the character as described in the OP was evil, the question is still valid - there are plenty of undeniably evil characters who would still choose to protect the other people in this situation.

To me, it would depend on if he successfully got the attention of a deity. The sword itself, assuming we're talking about a normal non-intelligent weapon, can't really choose whether to have that effect or not. It's like if a group of fire elementals had a sword that was made of solid fire, so that anyone touching it took fire damage. One day, they're under attack from water elementals and a friendly conjurer who's summoned them before shows up to help their defense. Even if he's working on behalf of fire-aligned creatures, he'd still get burnt by handling the sword.

But if he did get a deity's attention? Then sure, seems likely he'd get at least a temporary reprieve from the negative effects of the sword. If the deity was of the harsher ethos, he might only have the penalties delayed rather than removed, so after the threat is defeated (if it is), he suffers the negative levels for an equal amount of time as he held the sword.

Of course this also depends on the setting - if a good-aligned deity becomes aware of the situation, then why not just smite the undead into dust? Or open a portal for the people in the church to flee? Most settings have some kind of "deity non-intervention agreement", so it depends on how strict that is.

[Samael Morgenst]

To me, it would depend on if he successfully got the attention of a deity. The sword itself, assuming we're talking about a normal non-intelligent weapon, can't really choose whether to have that effect or not. It's like if a group of fire elementals had a sword that was made of solid fire, so that anyone touching it took fire damage. One day, they're under attack from water elementals and a friendly conjurer who's summoned them before shows up to help their defense. Even if he's working on behalf of fire-aligned creatures, he'd still get burnt by handling the sword.

But Good is all about that thing of redemption, atonement, repentance, penance and stuff.

[Kish]

Only robust men, he never hit a woman (well, a civilian woman - amazonian fighters and barbarian female halforcs are a lecit exception) or an elder, or a youngling. And he don't kick unconscious foes when they're down.

But yes, getting drunk according to that Dragon Magazine issue about Temptation Point is still considered a minor evil act, as it is brawling, and when they become radicated habits they slowly lead to the (weakly) Evil alignment.

Not enough to *ping* a detect evil spell mabye, for sure no Evil aura, but the alignment is still that.



Well, Evil do not means necessarily to be sadistical, murderous monsters.

Dude, two of us cited what evil does mean in D&D. Now you're bringing in Dragon Magazine to contradict the SRD? The answer to your question remains: inapplicable because he's not evil.

(And in D&D 3.5ed, if he has no evil aura, and if he doesn't ping a detect evil spell, that also means he's not evil. Neutral is a thing, you know.)

And...does the specific character matter, or only the abstract question "what if an evil character grabs a holy weapon to use heroically?"

[Darg]

But Good is all about that thing of redemption, atonement, repentance, penance and stuff.

I mean yeah, if the character is actually repentant then they would no longer be evil. Doing good acts does not equate to being good. An evil tyrannical overlord funding orphanages out of their own pocket doesn't outweigh the evil they do. Think of it like robber barons. The soup kitchens they fund doesn't make up for the fact that they didn't pay their workers living wages in the first place making the soup kitchens necessary.

[Eurus]

I realize "DM's call" is the most useless answer here, but I can't really see a better one if I take OP's word for the character's original alignment and the morality of his orphanage-defending action.

Unless you're using Behavioral Alignment rules (which I do think are interesting), there's no contradiction with an Evil character taking a Good action, and there's also no contradiction in an Evil character becoming Good as the result of taking a Good action. Alignment doesn't flip instantly every time you take an action, and although it's almost certainly true that some actions are more Good or Evil than others, it's not an easily quantified thing. A DM could reasonably rule that the character's decision is so heavily Good that it flips his alignment on the spot, but they could just as easily decide that it doesn't.

Prayer adds an interesting curveball. This is almost certainly setting-dependent, but the Portfolio Sense ability means that it's entirely possible that the god in question does become aware of what's going on. What the god is then able to do about it is also setting-dependent, though. Most settings don't let gods go around breaking the rules willy-nilly, and as far as I know, there's no RAW ability for a god to instantly change the alignment of a mortal outside of the same atonement spell available to anyone.

Personally, I'd give him the negative levels for a bit, then dramatically remove them if he survives a few rounds. :smallamused:

[Crake]

according to that Dragon Magazine issue

You’re aware that Dragon magazine is NOT first party material right?

[spectralphoenix]

I feel like there are really three independent questions being discussed here:

1) What is the character's alignment normally?

2) What is the character's alignment now?

3) What do the gods do about this?

I don't really agree with the OP's picture of alignment, but if you want to say he's evil in your game, so he is. I would point out that being evil for Detect Evil has the same requirements as being evil for a holy sword - if he's not evil enough to 'ping' a detect evil spell he shouldn't be penalized by the sword.

For two, I think the answer is that alignment is a state of being. It's not a sum total of good and evil deeds and you don't have to ask a god for permission to change alignments. In an actual game the DM might want to see some evidence of alignment change so the character can't just be good until he can sell the sword and buy a snazzy evil one, but as far as the narrative goes he can have a sudden epiphany and change, just like that. The catch is that he has to change. If in your universe "fights hordes of demons then drinks beer at the local tavern" works out to an evil alignment, then he's evil whether he's in the fighting demons or the drinking stage.

What the gods should or can do is totally a question of setting and DM. In Eberron, the gods aren't even provably real. In Forgotten Realms, they go around at night throwing rocks through atheists' windows.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

In Forgotten Realms, they go around at night throwing rocks through atheists' windows.And then Old Man Henderson told them to get off his lawn, and if they didn't, he'd give them a shotgun slug enema. Bhaal laughed at him. Then he found out why you don't laugh at Old Man Henderson.

He ain't laughin' no more.

[Samael Morgenst]

You’re aware that Dragon magazine is NOT first party material right?

Isn't considered canon? It's the official d&d magazine. It's content appears in many canon supplements.

[Crake]

Isn't considered canon? It's the official d&d magazine. It's content appears in many canon supplements.

“Canon” is for narratives. It may be the officially recognised d&d magazine, but it was neither written, published, nor edited by wizard of the coast.

The material that was adapted for 1st party supplements went through editing and review by wotc before publishing, but no, dragon magazine is not “canon”

[Chronos]

Certainly, anywhere where Dragon Magazine contradicts the PHB, the PHB takes precedence. Or at most, what's in the magazine constitutes an alternate variant rule.

And besides, even if one does construe drunkenness as evil, neutral characters can commit evil acts. Even good characters can commit evil acts. The guy described in the OP sounds to me like a textbook example of Chaotic Neutral.

[OracleofWuffing]

Setting aside what D&D defines as evil (or [Evil]), the bottom line is that if the player wrote "Chaotic Evil," "Neutral Evil," or "Lawful Evil" on their character sheet, then the character's evil. Even if they haven't recently committed any evil acts. As long as that alignment stays like that, the character's getting negative levels. The praying could be an opportunity for the DM and player to consider a change in alignment.

If it was my personal call as a DM, any chance of an alignment change flew out the window the second you said "temporarily." Dude knew what he was getting into when he wrote "Chaotic Evil" on his character sheet, and gods want commitment. If I wanted the mercenary to have a cool sword without a negative level, I would have selected a different enchantment.

Is the good sword punishing the character for trying to be good? Yeah, no one said D&D alignment is smart and this isn't an intelligent item. The character is using a tool that is explicitly designed not to be used by him. The alternative "lesson" to be taught- that your choices don't matter because we'll just do whatever's easiest for the narrative- seems more dangerous to me, but could fly at a few other tables pretty well if discussed in advance.

To reframe the question in a different light, if a party was trying to intercept a Lawful Good soldier from interfering in some evil cult ritual to doom the world, and they sundered all of the soldier's weaponry... How would you feel if the soldier happened upon an Evil sword, prayed to an evil god, and used it to prematurely slaughter the virgins that needed to be sacrificed to complete said ritual?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The character could have a talk with the local priest, tell him (or her) that he knows he's not a good person, and to ask for a blessing of some sort that would allow him to wield the sword and save HaplessOrphanBurg. Perhaps the priest could commune with its deity and hit him with a Protection From Evil, inverted. Perhaps give him some penalties to other things he cares about outside of a fight, but for the upcoming battle, he'll be able to save all the hapless orphans that live there. In exchange, he must agree to do something for the priest's deity, enforced with a binding geas. It must be agreed to up front, and it can't be something particularly onerous, else he might just decide to skive off instead of saving the hapless orphans. If the deity is clever, it'll be something that teaches the "evil" character that doing good feels good and can have good consequences.

After all, if the god's faithful live there, said god should want its future sacrifices followers to survive, and the person trying to help is trying to help, and good deeds should be rewarded with good things on occasion, especially for someone who normally wouldn't do such things. And redeeming evil is at least as important as smiting it. Of course, it depends on the deity in question, so perhaps a kinder, gentler deity more focused on redemption rather than slaughter?

[Chronos]

Quoth OracleofWuffing:

Setting aside what D&D defines as evil (or [Evil]), the bottom line is that if the player wrote "Chaotic Evil," "Neutral Evil," or "Lawful Evil" on their character sheet, then the character's evil. Even if they haven't recently committed any evil acts.
If they consistently never commit any major evil acts, then it's time for the DM to take the player aside and tell them "Despite what you wrote on your character sheet, based on how you're actually playing the character, they're actually neutral.". Probably before the orphanage or the sword even shows up.

[Crake]

If they consistently never commit any major evil acts, then it's time for the DM to take the player aside and tell them "Despite what you wrote on your character sheet, based on how you're actually playing the character, they're actually neutral.". Probably before the orphanage or the sword even shows up.

I solve this by just not having the players write an alignment on their sheets, and when, or more likely IF it becomes relevant, I as a DM will make a decision about their alignment based on their actions and attitudes

[OracleofWuffing]

If they consistently never commit any major evil acts, then it's time for the DM to take the player aside and tell them "Despite what you wrote on your character sheet, based on how you're actually playing the character, they're actually neutral.". Probably before the orphanage or the sword even shows up.
Agreed, but the situation provided is that the sword and church are already here. My opinion is that it's too late to do that sort of a retroactive change absent a more convincing reason (and it's my fault as the DM for failing to identify and act upon this oversight), but other tables will have their own tastes.

[Buufreak]

If they consistently never commit any major evil acts, then it's time for the DM to take the player aside and tell them "Despite what you wrote on your character sheet, based on how you're actually playing the character, they're actually neutral.". Probably before the orphanage or the sword even shows up.

AFB at the moment, but I fully agree with this idea and assessment, citing the line in (I think PHB1) about how alignment can change, and it is wise to regularly reflect on character actions and motivations to see if alignment should be nudged in any given direction.

[Satinavian]

But Good is all about that thing of redemption, atonement, repentance, penance and stuff.
But there is no intelligence deciding whether to hand out the negative level or not. It is just an item that does it. Maybe because whatever artficer developed the item property wanted to make sure no evil people take and misuse or hide/destroy the weapon, maybe it couldn't be prevented as a side effect as the "harm evil" property couldn't be contained in the blade. No matter, now it is just an item that gives negative levels to all evil weilders and is unable to look into specific situations.

Now a god could obviously take action. But that is basically up to the DM and not really worth discussing.


As for being evil, yes, per definition that basically requires to harm others for your benefit or desires. But there are RAW esceptions : If you really want an evil person who never did something the players find particularly objectionable, you could go with "use poison" or "cast spells with the evil tag". Someone who daily casts protection from good for the mind control protection is evil as is a fur hunter or rat catcher relying on poison.

[icefractal]

IDK why there's an issue imagining a character who's evil but would still risk themselves to save others. You don't need to be evil in all aspects of your life to be evil!

For example, a character who's usually nice to everyone ... except that they're also a serial killer. Maybe they only kill, like, Dwarves in particular, and wouldn't dream of attacking a non-Dwarf unprovoked.

Or someone with a lot of spite and pride, who does things like kill someone for accidentally bumping into them. But then their response to this situation is - "These piss-ant undead think they can make me run?! They'll rue the day! I'm going to slay every single zombie or die trying!"

Or even someone who's generally ruthless, taking whatever actions put them ahead regardless of the consequences to others. But in this situation, they calculate no chance of escape even if they try to use the others as shields. So, since they're stuck anyway, may as well go down fighting and let someone survive (they don't assign zero value to others, they just assign infinite value to themselves).

Or someone who did very bad things to achieve their goals, and would do it again, but "survive at any cost" isn't one of those goals, and they're otherwise quite altruistic.

And so forth.

[SangoProduction]

IDK why there's an issue imagining a character who's evil but would still risk themselves to save others. You don't need to be evil in all aspects of your life to be evil!

For example, a character who's usually nice to everyone ... except that they're also a serial killer. Maybe they only kill, like, Dwarves in particular, and wouldn't dream of attacking a non-Dwarf unprovoked.

Or someone with a lot of spite and pride, who does things like kill someone for accidentally bumping into them. But then their response to this situation is - "These piss-ant undead think they can make me run?! They'll rue the day! I'm going to slay every single zombie or die trying!"

Or even someone who's generally ruthless, taking whatever actions put them ahead regardless of the consequences to others. But in this situation, they calculate no chance of escape even if they try to use the others as shields. So, since they're stuck anyway, may as well go down fighting and let someone survive (they don't assign zero value to others, they just assign infinite value to themselves).

Or someone who did very bad things to achieve their goals, and would do it again, but "survive at any cost" isn't one of those goals, and they're otherwise quite altruistic.

And so forth.

There are ways to make the scenario Evil. The one presented, however, was not. It was explicitly about protecting the innocents. The known sacrifice of one's self for others is emblematic of the Good alignment, and is the prototypical Heroic Sacrifice. Even when done pragmatically.

You can run the calculus and go "Oh hey, if I save this village, they'd write epic legends about me, and I'll be a grand hero for all of history! So, I'm going to help people out." Selfish motivation, perhaps... but saving a a village is Good (by default - assuming it's a normal, functional village that isn't full of murder demons). Pragmatism is an excuse, not something to be guilty of.

No one (here) said that every Evil character must be absolutely Evil with no other characteristics or in-groups or anything but Pure Evil.

[Samael Morgenst]

Albeit the sacrifice was genuine, the point is, one can't usually change his alignment in a few seconds, even if remorseful.

The idea was about the guilt-ridden Evil character asking the gods "Give me just enough reprive to atone for my sins and save those people".

[Crake]

For example, a character who's usually nice to everyone ... except that they're also a serial killer. Maybe they only kill, like, Dwarves in particular, and wouldn't dream of attacking a non-Dwarf unprovoked.

This isn't exactly "risking themselves" for anything though.


Or someone with a lot of spite and pride, who does things like kill someone for accidentally bumping into them. But then their response to this situation is - "These piss-ant undead think they can make me run?! They'll rue the day! I'm going to slay every single zombie or die trying!"

Also not risking themselves to save the orphanage, they're risking themselves out of pride. Seems they would have done the same, orphanage or no.


Or even someone who's generally ruthless, taking whatever actions put them ahead regardless of the consequences to others. But in this situation, they calculate no chance of escape even if they try to use the others as shields. So, since they're stuck anyway, may as well go down fighting and let someone survive (they don't assign zero value to others, they just assign infinite value to themselves).

It's not really "risk" if you're gonna die anyway, is it?

Masquerading your actions isn't the same as actually doing them for the right reasons. The second guy, for example, may be able to convince the orphans that he saved their lives out of the goodness of his heart AFTER the fact, but truth is, they weren't even a thought on his mind at the time.

Now, there IS an example though, and that's the "ends justify the means" kind of evil. The kind of person who would do all the wrong things for all the right reasons. That's the sort of evil person who would likely, truly, attempt to save the orphans at the cost of their own life.

[Darg]

There are ways to make the scenario Evil. The one presented, however, was not. It was explicitly about protecting the innocents. The known sacrifice of one's self for others is emblematic of the Good alignment, and is the prototypical Heroic Sacrifice. Even when done pragmatically.

You can run the calculus and go "Oh hey, if I save this village, they'd write epic legends about me, and I'll be a grand hero for all of history! So, I'm going to help people out." Selfish motivation, perhaps... but saving a a village is Good (by default - assuming it's a normal, functional village that isn't full of murder demons). Pragmatism is an excuse, not something to be guilty of.

No one (here) said that every Evil character must be absolutely Evil with no other characteristics or in-groups or anything but Pure Evil.

Doing good does not make a character good in D&D. Maybe after a long time of doing good their outlook changes, but an evil character will still be evil even if doing a good act. Their alignment is fundamentally the whole track of life they choose to walk.

[Chronos]

Quoth Samael Morgenst:

Albeit the sacrifice was genuine, the point is, one can't usually change his alignment in a few seconds, even if remorseful.
Although, ultimately it has to be true that you can change your alignment in a few seconds. Like, a person can change over the course of years, right? Well, let's suppose that an evildoer is arrested for their deeds, and is thrown into prison for years. Over the course of their incarceration, they think back on the harm they've caused, and eventually repent and resolve to do better, such that, by the time they're released, they're no longer evil (this is, of course, one of the goals of the prison system). And let's also suppose that in the cell right next to them, there's a paladin who was wrongly imprisoned, and with nothing better to spend their time on, they use their at-will Detect Evil every single round on the other prisoner. There must come some time when the first prisoner shows up as evil on one casting, but not evil six seconds later.

And if that moment must exist at some point, then it makes sense that the moment when it happens would be when something else significant happens. Maybe it's after a philosophical conversation, or after getting caught, or after reading a particularly insightful book... or maybe it's when, suddenly, the opportunity comes up to fight off an undead horde to save an orphanage.

[Eurus]

Although, ultimately it has to be true that you can change your alignment in a few seconds. Like, a person can change over the course of years, right? Well, let's suppose that an evildoer is arrested for their deeds, and is thrown into prison for years. Over the course of their incarceration, they think back on the harm they've caused, and eventually repent and resolve to do better, such that, by the time they're released, they're no longer evil (this is, of course, one of the goals of the prison system). And let's also suppose that in the cell right next to them, there's a paladin who was wrongly imprisoned, and with nothing better to spend their time on, they use their at-will Detect Evil every single round on the other prisoner. There must come some time when the first prisoner shows up as evil on one casting, but not evil six seconds later.

And if that moment must exist at some point, then it makes sense that the moment when it happens would be when something else significant happens. Maybe it's after a philosophical conversation, or after getting caught, or after reading a particularly insightful book... or maybe it's when, suddenly, the opportunity comes up to fight off an undead horde to save an orphanage.

Yeah, this is my thought too. The fact that alignment mechanics are binary (...ternary, technically) means a few things. It means there has to be a discrete "tipping point", a boundary between one alignment and the next, where you change. It also means that even if two characters are Evil, one of them can be closer to Neutral than the other. Presumably, this also means that a person could be "barely Evil", where they're in a state that they do still count as Evil but one major Good deed could flip them.

[InvisibleBison]

Albeit the sacrifice was genuine, the point is, one can't usually change his alignment in a few seconds, even if remorseful.

Usually one can't, but sometimes one can:


[I]t's possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes neutral good.

[Satinavian]

There is also the fact that repenting and atoning is not required for an alignment change. It is enough if the person basically stops doing evil and does the occianal good deed. And then thealignment will change after enough time.

[RegalKain]

I think I mirror the thoughts of many others when I give this opinion.

IF the item is unintelligent and the gods do not directly interfere. The wielder is saddled with negative levels.
If the item is intelligent. It may impose a geas of some kind, or some sort of possession to negative the negative levels, depending on how "strict" the item is, it could even postpone the negative levels until innocent lives are saved and kill the wielder after.
If the item is unintelligent and the gods do directly interfere. It entirely depends on which god interferes, how they feel about the situation, whether or not it's Taco Tuesday at the local Cosmart and if they give a crap about the orphans in the first place. (As a general rule of thumb - reading through source material - the gods give maybe like 1/10th of a **** about mortals. It's more of a "Here's some super powers, go do good I guess." Instead of actually being helpful in most cases.

To the debate about evil- I'd also argue that the character isn't. [Evil] even if they are a bit evil.

I had a Lawful [Evil] character once, who would often go out of their way to save guards and innocent people. Because he was an assassin who wanted to be well known and well-regarded in cities he frequented. But if someone paid for you to die, he'd use poison, slip in when you were sleeping and kill you and anyone around you that might be able to identify him. I give this excerpt because I could absolutely see evil people doing "good" things. But from what the OP described, I wouldn't call the character [Evil]. Just a snarky adventurer who has a substance abuse problem because their job consists of fighting eldritch creatures that cause insanity by existing.

[Aquillion]

So there's several things colliding at once here.

1. Part of the game's premise is that everyone has an alignment in one of these nine squares, and mostly sticks to it consistently. People can and do change alignment, but on the whole, part of the fantasy is that there are "lawful good" people and "chaotic evil" people and that these categories meaningfully describe people in the long term.

2. The entire concept of swords that care about your alignment rests on this. So by default, he gets the negative levels, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

3. At the same time, alignment isn't intended to be a straitjacket - it is there to enable storytelling, not to obstruct it. So if a player did this, I think the DM should just ask them what their intent is. With that in mind...

4. Having this be a moment of revelation where the character becomes not-evil is reasonable. Alignment can and does change, and that sort of storytelling element can be cool. I would personally frown on nit-picking along the lines of "was this set up properly" or "is this cool enough" - players are supposed to play their own characters, and nit-picking their storytelling ability seems wrong to me.

5. Having them just choose to suck up the negative levels is also reasonable (evil people can do good things while remaining evil.)

[Darg]

The problem is that the character wants to remain evil after their "act of goodness."

[Aquillion]

Well, in that case they just take the negative level. The premise of the setting is that good and evil are something you are, not just something you do; they can change, but they don't instantly update to reflect your behavior at any given moment. Absent magic, changing your alignment isn't like updating your social media status.

It's reasonable for people to side-eye this, but it's not really intended to be realistic or a deep commentary on anything, it's just intended as a quick way to allow for epic battles of good and evil in which "good" and "evil" are concrete, metaphysically meaningful categories.

[SpyOne]

What kind of test would be appropriate? I don't know, but how about this: Take up a Holy sword and defend a church full of innocent people against murderous fiends in spite of having to suffer negative levels while you do it. This is the test, should you choose to accept it.

I can actually hear a Good cleric uttering these very words and demanding this heroic act as proof of worthiness of Atonement. (And you have to promise, for the rest of your life, never to revert to Evil again, and when you promise this, you have to mean it, no bluffing!) Good clerics are not fools, and neither are their deities.



This actually strikes me as a great opportunity for dramatic storytelling: at a key moment in the battle, he suddenly stops suffering the negative levels.
Perhaps this is even what make the difference between this being a last stand and him survivin- those few extra hit points and those suddenly better attacks.

[SpyOne]

And besides, even if one does construe drunkenness as evil, neutral characters can commit evil acts.
This.
Gygax said that the reason Druids are neutral is that they routinely do both good and evil things, specifically things of benefit to society but also human sacrifice.
In a world where bandits are neutral the character described here doesn't sound evil.

[SpyOne]

But there is no intelligence deciding whether to hand out the negative level or not. It is just an item that does it. (Snip)

Now a god could obviously take action. But that is basically up to the DM and not really worth discussing.
A God is an intelligence capable of making that call, and it's worth discussing because that is specifically what we were asked to discuss - the character is asking the God to intervene and we are being asked what we would rule the result of that to be.

[SpyOne]

IDK why there's an issue imagining a character who's evil but would still risk themselves to save others. You don't need to be evil in all aspects of your life to be evil!.
I haven't noticed anyone doubting if an evil character might make the stand described here.
I have, however, seen people discussing whether the character described there is actually evil.
Yes, evil characters can do good things. They can do them for evil or selfish reasons, they can even do them for good reasons with nessicarilly having a change of heart. But none of that seems relevant here.

Two answer the two questions that the first question has split into:
I don't think this character sounds evil. Someone here has a signature that says "Evil isn't looking out for number one, evil is looking to screw number two." This character sounds, at worst, like a selfish jerk.
I believe a character who is evil might be granted a miracle of the sort asked for here - immunity to the Ill effects of using a holy weapon for the duration of this combat since it serves the God's goals. But also might not. And it will matter if the gods in this world are nebulous forces or occasional drinking buddies.

[Gnaeus]

Yeah, this is my thought too. The fact that alignment mechanics are binary (...ternary, technically) means a few things. It means there has to be a discrete "tipping point", a boundary between one alignment and the next, where you change. It also means that even if two characters are Evil, one of them can be closer to Neutral than the other. Presumably, this also means that a person could be "barely Evil", where they're in a state that they do still count as Evil but one major Good deed could flip them.

I'm not looking for a cite unless someone has one and I don't promise it exists in 3.5 as opposed to older editions, but I remember lots of NPCs (and PCs, but based on the example of the NPCs) that were N(e), or Neutral, leaning evil or good. And as with everything else, there are a ton of reasons for that. I had a character who was Cn(e) because his personal morality tended towards neutral but he worshiped a CE god, specifically as the patron of Chaos and Personal freedom. He would have absolutely defended an orphanage. Kids can't exercise freedom if they are dead. But if the demon attacking it flashed his boss' sign he would also have walked away in a heartbeat or murdered the guards coming to put out the fire. And if he saw the director of the orphanage discipline a child for not obeying the rules he would have left the orphan her head as an object lesson for how to treat people who try to tell you what to do. Because that child will never develop its true potential with a bunch of rules keeping it down. But as long as it wasn't related to his god's other followers or his fanatical devotion to chaos he preferred good to evil and actually started a order of his god's church with a CN orientation. He probably danced across the CN/CE line a dozen times. Whats wrong with summoning a demon to attack a band of slavers, for the benefit of freeing slaves?

[Vaern]

Albeit the sacrifice was genuine, the point is, one can't usually change his alignment in a few seconds, even if remorseful.

The idea was about the guilt-ridden Evil character asking the gods "Give me just enough reprive to atone for my sins and save those people".

He can't change his alignment in an instant, but if the character had already been feeling guilty, trying to improve himself, and undergoing a sort of antihero redemption arc leading up to this moment then reaching out for the sword could be the crux of his alignment shift. Mind you, he doesn't need to become good to use the weapon - a holy weapon only bestows its penalty on evil characters trying to wield it, so neutral is good enough.

An evil character is one who will go out of his way to harm others, often taking pleasure in their suffering. Sex, drugs, and rock & roll may be considered immoral, but such mindless self-indulgence as having the occasional drunken orgy isn't likely to shift your alignment from neutral to evil if nobody's getting hurt in the process. The brawling and stealing - harming others for personal gain and enjoyment - will push him back towards evil if he keeps at it, but partying too hard will not. He could reasonably shift to neutral and maintain that alignment by giving up his harmful vices while maintaining his self-indulgent ones.

There's any number of reasons for how or why his alignment could change, but in the end the answer to the original question is still simply "No." An evil character can not wield a holy sword without penalty. Regardless of how good the reason may be, he is still evil and receives negative levels as such for as long as his alignment line reads "Evil." If the character is only able to use the sword due to a shift in alignment then the initial question is irrelevant: The character is no longer an evil character wielding a holy weapon for a good purpose. He is simply a neutral or good character wielding a holy weapon, which is perfectly legal and no exception needs to be made based on the virtue of his actions or intentions.

[AMFV]

Let's suppose there is that Chaotic Evil mercenary.
He's a sinner, a drunkard, a lustful man that paid prostitutes, gambled, brawled and stealed.

Drinking, Gambling, Solicitation, brawling and theft are not necessarily evil.



But he's not completely heartless and now he's defending a church filled with innocents, mostly women and children. He's ready to give his own life for them. To face the fiends attacking the church, he needs a powerful weapon but the weapon he can use is an Holy, Good aligned sword.

So he prays , with genuine intent, the Good deity of that church to forgive his misdeeds just temporarily, so he can defend those innocents, and grabs the holy sword.

Should he receive the negative levels?

Are we talking a player character Evil Mercenary? Because that's pretty significant here. Does the player want their character to have a redemption arc? Like sure there's some rules stuff here, but the stuff outside the rules is more important. And if it's an NPC than as a DM you could make a call. I would say that a character who is genuinely repentant in that situation might have their alignment shift temporarily or otherwise.