Kill On Sight

[Callos_DeTerran]

I have a feeling this problem will be coming up in the near future for my IRL game. Now to be ABUDANTLY CLEAR, this is in the terms of D&D alignment system and not real-life morality. I'm leaving open evil as a character option, but my one player wishes to play a paladin. Badly. So when I mention it may not be possible (Not because they can't disassociate with evil, I don't use that rule) but because they'd most likely do evil things and he'd then be the source of inter-party conflict.

His solution was to simply detect evil when the group met, then make with the 'Holy smiting of Evil' so they'd make at least neutral ones. Now, my thoughts on this is that not only this an evil act, its one that'd make the paladin fall too. He saw them commit no evil, they did no evil to him, he just has his detect evil to go off of. It's like.....killing someone you know is vile but hasn't done anything, but because they might do something evil in the future. But I think he'll argue this fact with me.


...So....what do the other playgrounders think? This isn't a theoretical situation with hidden implecations or anything. This is defining if this one act is strictly by the D*D alignment system an Evil and evil act.

[Mewtarthio]

Wait, so you're saying that a single player wants to slaughter the entire party so that they'll play like he wants?

[Sucrose]

This is an iffy one, and (I think) ultimately your call.

I'd factor into this just what being evil means in your campaign. Does it mean that you're just mostly out for yourself, or do you need to slaughter orphans to gain the power to burn love to kill people to earn the moniker?

Now, it might not be an evil act in-game, if they qualify for the latter, but out-of-game, it's a bastard move, since you, as DM, have already explicitly allowed evil PCs, so they're within their rights, and he's trying to force them to play a certain way for the sake of his character.

Unless you're okay with PVP, I strongly recommend you to tell him that that sort of garbage won't fly in your game, and if he tries it, either say that he arbitrarily fails, or kick him out. Such actions, when going against DM intent, are extremely disruptive, and uncalled for.

[Idea Man]

You need to nip this in the bud before it becomes a problem. I assume, since you are allowing evil characters, that there is some interest, and, therefore, somebody wants to play that alignment-axis. Find out, ahead of time, what the others want to play. Make it an open discussion, lay it all on the table. If you wait until the party is in the full swing of an adventure, you'll need a small miracle to keep the paladin from smiting fellow party members.

Another route would be to deny access to the paladin class. If he needs a class that can smite, he can always play a cleric. If he just wants to be righteous, you migt want to figure out what kind of group the others were planning to play.

Of course, if he won't let it go, then you've really got a problem.

[Lord Tataraus]

Personally, I would not allow that kind of thing to go unpunished. You have warned him (I hope) of the consequences of his actions, but if he goes through with it, I'd make him drop to LN and have guards arrest him, followed most likely by an execution, depending on how the trail goes and what sort of town they are in. Of course before hand I would try my best to persuade him not to be a paladin.

[Chronos]

It's quite possible to be evil without being deserving of death, and it's possible for someone who's not evil at all to appear to be so, due to various magical effects. Therefore, killing someone for no other reason than that they show up on Detect Evil is murder, an evil act. If this player is so eager to play a character that behaves that way, then he doesn't actually want to play a paladin.

[Skjaldbakka]

Paladins have to uphold a lawful alignment as well as a good one. Killing someone for detecting as evil, and for no other reason, will cause a paladin to lose his powers for violating his alignment.

[Lemur]

Key guideline for alignment: if you have to justify you're actions, you probably did something wrong. What's good and evil should be intuitively apparent most of the time, barring real moral dilemmas. There aren't any good arguments for paladins going around killing everyone who detects as evil just because they detect as evil, especially if those people are PCs. Such an action would earn him a one-way ticket to fallsville, and in my opinion, seriously risks getting the player a ticket to kickedoutofthecampaignopolis.

If he even tries to argue the ruling, I'd tell him he's already walking on thin ice, and either abides by the decision, or leaves the campaign for being disruptive.

[Darkantra]

If he wants to be a slaughter-hungry paladin then let him. If he tries to smite the other party members then have him tossed in jail by the constabulantry. Or you could let him succeed, become Fallen and then having a mob of people in a bar beat him to unconciousness.

[Mewtarthio]

Of course before hand I would try my best to persuade him not to be a paladin.

"Persuade"? The OP's the DM. He doesn't have to "persuade" anything. He can just outright say "No paladins. Also, no killing your fellow party members unless you feel like turning in your character sheet." Of course, the more important thing to say is, "This isn't your game. You're playing with a large group of people who also want to have fun." Remember, this guy's basically saying that, rather than change his character concept, he wants everyone else to change theirs.

[Anteros]

You guys realize that this is exactly what detect evil is for right?

If something detects as evil, then the paladin kills it. People wont detect as evil if they are say...not paying their taxes on time, or running out on a bar tab. They detect as evil if they are actually evil and perpetually commit evil acts. Thus, smitage.

Outside of that fact, couldnt you just create some motivation for him to go along with the party? You already said that he wont fall for associating with evil characters, so theres no good reason a paladin couldnt associate with evil in order to ultimately do good. Although if your people are planning to be the "lolz I stabs her cause it's funny" type of evil this obviously won't work, and someone is going to have to give up the character that they want to play.

[Rad]

OK, here is my advice; I have a strong opinion in this matters so I'm sorry if it comes a bit harsh

Talk. About. It. With. Everybody.

No, seriously, the palyers should choose what kind of party they want to have o have fun and then stick to it. Team good is OK, Team evil is OK and some also like the mixed-alignments-and-then-kill-each-other thing; but in all cases all the people involved should agree to it beforehand.

D&D is like playing lego; if someone builds a castle and the other one makes his side of the building a starship they're going to complain that the other guy is killing their game. Playing D&D can be very different things and you have to agree on that before.

Also, interplayer conflicts are bad but having an in game fight decide of them is worse. It doesn't matter if the Paladin can take the other party members without falling, what matters is if the Paladin player and the evil-character player, and the DM whose story is falling behind and the other players who might want to just get on are having fun while it happens. After you know whether this is enjoyable to everybody or not just act accordingly.

Investing one session without playing but just agreeing on what kind of game you want saves countless hours of arguments in the future... I highly recommend it.

Hope this helps

[Temp]

You could just drop Detect Evil. If he isn't positive another player's Evil, he's not going to whack them, right?

I swapped a Sense Motive bonus in for it in my games just because I can't stand the absolute alignment system. I haven't had any problems yet (I also switched the Soulknife special attack thing in for Smite so accidentally hitting a neutral baddy with it wouldn't be such a big deal. Still only works against evil-doers, though.)

[Blanks]

You need to nip this in the bud before it becomes a problem. I assume, since you are allowing evil characters, that there is some interest, and, therefore, somebody wants to play that alignment-axis. Find out, ahead of time, what the others want to play. Make it an open discussion, lay it all on the table.

This is always the way to go if you ask me.
One player clearly shouldn't be allowed to dictate the others alignment.

If they cannot work it out and he just leans back ie. he thinks the others will comply due to his threats, here is how i would work it:

The hardliner:
Make a level 20 evil character. Have him sit in the bar along with the other members of the party. Do not say who are party members and who isn't!
He will clearly detect as the most evil, so the paladin will attack him. Problem solved.

Poetic justice:
The paladin attacks the group. He kills one of the others, promptly gets arrested and executed. The dead party member is then ressurected by the church of the paladin because they are deeply ashamed of the public trial.

[Nowhere Girl]

You guys realize that this is exactly what detect evil is for right?

If something detects as evil, then the paladin kills it. People wont detect as evil if they are say...not paying their taxes on time, or running out on a bar tab. They detect as evil if they are actually evil and perpetually commit evil acts. Thus, smitage.

Yes, but there are evil acts that don't involve murder. Some of them are committed by corporate bigwigs every day ... you know, use the little people to get what you want?

Of course, evil is still evil and despicable after all, and a paladin's hardly going to be sympathetic to the wealthy capitalist (merchant, perhaps) who profits by knowingly exploiting others. However, paladins are also lawful, which implies either a respect for the law of the land or a very strict personal code of honor, neither of which are likely to allow him or her to just draw steel and lay into a person who blinks red on the detect evil radar.

Likelier courses of action would involve one of the following:

1. Paladin initiates a line of questioning with the person, seeking to uncover the nature of the evil. If clever, the paladin perhaps feigns haplessness or otherwise plays at being innocuous (this isn't directly lying, engaging in underhanded sabatoge, or anything of that nature -- it's just an intelligent way to go about it) ... think Columbo

2. Paladin keeps an eye on the individual ... a close eye

3. Paladin actively tries to guide the individual to a better path

4. Paladin tries to by some other means to determine what crimes that individual has committed, if any, with the hope of bringing him to justice

5. Paladin openly challenges the individual, informs him of being fully aware of his evil nature, and demands that he explain himself in the name of (insert deity of justice and etc. or somesuch here)

But just abruptly whipping out a sword and making with the smiting? That's more vigilante and honorless ... more ... chaotic, actually.

[Irreverent Fool]

There was a paladin who suspected over the course of an entire campaign that my chaotic good beguiler/mindbender was evil due to his 'ends justify the means' attitude. He constantly admonished him, shut down his more questionable suggestions, and always tried to lead by example. He never aimed a detect evil at the party and over the course of the game began to sway the mindbender closer to his way of thinking.

'Knowingly associating' with evil is kind of a gray area and who is better at lying to themselves than a paladin? Heck, the complete scoundrel even tells us any class can be a scoundrel.

[Skjaldbakka]

Can you be a good-aligned mindbender?

[Jarlax]

his god will drop him like a bad smell the moment he begins this course of action.

he is lawful good and dropping either alignment feature makes him an ex-paladin. not only is murder an evil act but choosing to attack the party members without provocation based solely on the fact they are evil is a non-lawful act.

there are laws that govern the world and paladins detect-evil is not a licence to kill, even if he watched the party murder an inn full of people he MUST hand them over to the city gaurd, not execute them on sight. the paladin code requires all members of that class to respect legitimate authority an nonevil city law definatly counts.

finally a paladin cannot accociate with evil people and since he cannot slay them it is the paladin who has to go, not the rest of the party.

[Skjaldbakka]

even if he watched the party murder an inn full of people he MUST hand them over to the city gaurd, not execute them on sight.

If he just watched, he has more problems that whether or not he turns them over to the gaurd.

[Moral Wiz]

You guys realize that this is exactly what detect evil is for right?

If something detects as evil, then the paladin kills it. People wont detect as evil if they are say...not paying their taxes on time, or running out on a bar tab. They detect as evil if they are actually evil and perpetually commit evil acts. Thus, smitage.

No. They detect evil if, under the alignment system, they count as evil. I've played as evil characters who seldom, if ever, commit outright evil acts. One or two were pillars of society, at least one was a major force against necromancy. Characters who register as evil tend to be more fun to RP, and I'd reccomend them... and they still get killed on sight by people like the OP describes.

In responce to the OP; it depends. Look at the evil applicants to start with. Do any of them look like game breaking psychos? if not, just give them a free gift. Cloak of Undetectable Alignment. That's fair. No alignment detection effect works.

If any of them seem like they'd be as bad as the Pally... well, still don't let him smite them. But take those players asside too, when you explain to them how bad it is to become extremists(ala Miko/Belkar), and how the rest of the party won't like it.

[Nebo_]

Has anyone actually read the Detect Evil spell description?

You can't detect if someone has an evil alignment with it. It detects evil undead, evil outsiders and the auras of evil clerics.

[Temp]

Has anyone actually read the Detect Evil spell description?

Yup. Evil creatures have Faint Evil Auras until 11 HD, Moderate until 26, Strong until 51 and Overpowering onward. So Paladins can detect it in Non-Clerics.

[Zincorium]

Has anyone actually read the Detect Evil spell description?

You can't detect if someone has an evil alignment with it. It detects evil undead, evil outsiders and the auras of evil clerics.

The table Temp is talking about is on page 219 of the players handbook. The three you listed are out of four on there, the very first column is any creature, and even a faint evil aura can be detected one to six rounds after you've left a particular area.

[Jarlax]

If he just watched, he has more problems that whether or not he turns them over to the gaurd.

this is merely an example where the paladin could find justification to kill the party and assumes that they wont try to kill the paladin in the process and that he somehow could not intervene. if they attacked him then he WOULD have justification to kill them (out of self defense).

[hewhosaysfish]

First off: Smiting
Not sure how/if I can do a table... here's some ASCII:
[EDIT] I fail at table.

OK, I'll summarise...

If, in your campaign, only depraved lunatics like Murder "Stabby" McPuppy-Eater are actually Evil* then the paladin will be a hero if he kills evildoers on sight/detection and will fall (for negligence/dereliction of duty) if he doesn't.

If, in your campaign, guys who don't leave the toilet seat down pick up an Evil alignment for the inconsiderateness* then the paladin will be a mass-murderer if he smites on sight and can avoid falling by simply walking on by.[/EDIT]

(*Hewhosaysfish is not responsible for any misunderstanding caused by his overuse of hyperbole.)

From this, I hope it should be clear that if that paladin player doesn't know how his DM is handling Evil alignments in the game, then he has a 50/50 chance of falling no matter how he chooses to act!
So be sure to tell him.

In general though, paladins and evil character do not mix well. At all. Ban one or the other. If you don't like swinging the banstick, expect things to reach their own equilibrium: either the paladin will kill of the evil party members and the players will have to come up with new (non-evil) characters, effectively banning evil, or the rest of the group will decide they don't want this one player calling the shots, all build evil chars and gang up on him, effectively banning paladins.

[Blanks]

@ hewhosaysfish
The DM tells me any alignment goes:
So I prepare my character for 3 months, research family trees, specific crest and so on, just to be killed after 3 minutes of play and the DM tells me:
"just build an evil character and gang up on him..."

Am i the only one who feels this is the DM letting the players down?
Metagaming like this should never be the solution.

Liked the rest of your post though :)

[Riffington]

You guys realize that this is exactly what detect evil is for right?

If something detects as evil, then the paladin kills it. People wont detect as evil if they are say...not paying their taxes on time, or running out on a bar tab.

Neither of those will cut it, true.
But let's say I go to little bars all the time, with the plan to run out on the tab. Then I might be evil (and deserve jail, not death).
Or what if I gossip all the time about my coworkers, and take malicious pleasure when it's hurtful gossip. That'd definitely make me evil (and deserve ostracism, not jail or death).

Unless in your campaign, evil means "mass murderer". Which is fine, if that's the kind of game you want to play.

[Kurald Galain]

His solution was to simply detect evil when the group met, then make with the 'Holy smiting of Evil' so they'd make at least neutral ones.

Well, rather obviously you can't feasibly have a party where one player wants to make a paladin and others want to make evil characters. It's such an obvious mismatch, it's unlikely that this difference in play styles will make for a fun campaign.

Now strictly speaking, killing something because it's evil does not cause a paladin to fall, but that does not mean that every single paladin :hinjo: has to behave like that. But whether the paladin can or cannot do this is really not the problem you're having here, only the symptom.

[Mad Mask]

One of the options could be to make a Lawful Neutral Paladin or a Paladin of Tyranny so the guy could be still a "paladin" and travel with the group.

And something I don't understand: if you are evil for cheating on poker and insulting people because they are ugly, why it is so hard to be good ?

[Riffington]

And something I don't understand: if you are evil for cheating on poker and insulting people because they are ugly, why it is so hard to be good ?

A few evil acts do not make an otherwise-good person evil, any more than a few good acts make an otherwise-evil person good. All people are sinners, and all people do benevolent things as well. Just, some more than others.