No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

[Anymage]

Planescape specifically is predicated on a lot of things that all do boil down to D&D's alignment system. The Great Wheel and assorted monsters for every alignment niche included. (Slaads and modrons exist because you needed planar citizens for chaos and law.) It's a cool setting that's intrinsically tied to D&D's alignment system because it was built from that basis, but granted the "fairy tale meets cyberpunk meets interdimensional transit hub" could be built around other cosmologies too.

The existence of a cool D&D setting based around D&D concepts does not prove the innate value of those concepts by themselves, though.

[Celestia]

Star Wars does not, in fact, have a light/dark dynamic. In fact, the term "light side" never once appears in any of the original six movies. It is just the Force: one, singular power source. The "dark side" is a corruption of the Force, using it in ways that it's not supposed to be used. That's why the Jedi can be seeking "balance" and the elimination of the Sith without those goals being contradictory. They are, in fact, the same goal. If we imagine the Force as a person, then the dark side is a cancer.

[JoeJ]

A passive effect that cares what team you're on is very much "just about teams". Imagine that we replaced D&D's alignment with MTG's color wheel. Is there anything in Planescape we couldn't port? What are we getting for defining our factions in a way that is confusing, ambiguous, and causes IRL arguments over terms?

I don't know anything about MtG, but an alignment system organized along different lines is still an alignment system. The axes don't necessarily have to match the ones used in D&D. Using very different axes, however, would change the nature of the planes to the point that your setting is not ported from Planescape so much as simply inspired by it.

The movies don't really bear that out though. The only person we see learn to use the force is Luke, and he learns the Light Side over like three lessons. Hard to imagine the Dark Side beating that for speed. In fact, going strictly by what's shown on-screen, the Dark Side seems to be the harder to master, as it's the only one with exclusive techniques. But regardless, that still doesn't require alignment. Maybe Sith do learn faster but eventually turn into gibbering cultists. No part of that requires that you declare that Sith are Evil and Jedi are Good.

If you want to play a Star Wars game where there's no difference between the two sides of the Force, have fun. It wouldn't be Star Wars for me.

he existence of a cool D&D setting based around D&D concepts does not prove the innate value of those concepts by themselves, though.

On the contrary, the innate value for any set of game rules is that they allow you to do some fun thing in the game. Alignment rules are necessary not just for Planescape, but for any setting in which morality is treated as objective. If you want to play the kind of fantasy in which it's possible to have a Sword of Evil Smiting that does extra damage when used against evil, or where chaotic beings can be magically detected, or where concentrating enough people with similar beliefs can change the physical environment, or where reading the Book of Bad Mojo can increase the power of evil characters and harm good ones, then you need to have some sort of alignment rules.

[NigelWalmsley]

I don't know anything about MtG, but an alignment system organized along different lines is still an alignment system.

There's a clear distinction between "there are factions" and "one of the factions is Good".

If you want to play a Star Wars game where there's no difference between the two sides of the Force, have fun. It wouldn't be Star Wars for me.

That's not really an argument. If you look at the source material, there really isn't support for a binary light side/dark side. There are certainly differences between Jedi and Sith, but there are also other types of force sensitives out there. Something like Shadowrun's Traditions are probably a better fit. And, of course, there are people who don't use the force at all, for which force-based alignment is wholly irrelevant.

then you need to have some sort of alignment rules.

That's not a defense of D&D's alignment rules, which are the ones in question. Also, you're wrong about a bunch of that stuff, because you can have "Smite Aberration" without anyone having a "Tentacles" alignment. If you just want tags, that also works fine.

[JoeJ]

There's a clear distinction between "there are factions" and "one of the factions is Good".

Exactly. Good vs. evil is only one possibly alignment axis. Even in D&D, the alignments were originally restricted to Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic.

That's not really an argument. If you look at the source material, there really isn't support for a binary light side/dark side. There are certainly differences between Jedi and Sith, but there are also other types of force sensitives out there. Something like Shadowrun's Traditions are probably a better fit. And, of course, there are people who don't use the force at all, for which force-based alignment is wholly irrelevant.

"But how am I to know the good side from the bad?"

"You will know... when you are calm, at peace, passive."

Yoda seemed to think there is a good side and a bad side.

That's not a defense of D&D's alignment rules, which are the ones in question. Also, you're wrong about a bunch of that stuff, because you can have "Smite Aberration" without anyone having a "Tentacles" alignment. If you just want tags, that also works fine.

What tag would you suggest is targeted by my previously mentioned Sword of Evil Smiting? Or the Book of Empowering Evil and Damaging Good? How do you have a fantasy world in which good and evil are objective descriptions that meaningfully impact the world without an alignment system? If you don't want to play in that kind of fantasy world, that's fine. Not everybody does. But if you do want that in your setting, alignment is necessary.

[Lord Raziere]

What tag would you suggest is targeted by my previously mentioned Sword of Evil Smiting? Or the Book of Empowering Evil and Damaging Good? How do you have a fantasy world in which good and evil are objective descriptions that meaningfully impact the world without an alignment system? If you don't want to play in that kind of fantasy world, that's fine. Not everybody does. But if you do want that in your setting, alignment is necessary.

Not really.

A demon comes and begins slaughtering people just minding their own business in some random village, mercilessly killing them because they are a demon. whether there is some cosmic system giving them a label is superfluous, they're clearly already cartoonishly evil and need to be put down. like what more do you need?

[JoeJ]

Not really.

A demon comes and begins slaughtering people just minding their own business in some random village, mercilessly killing them because they are a demon. whether there is some cosmic system giving them a label is superfluous, they're clearly already cartoonishly evil and need to be put down. like what more do you need?

What I need to know is which creatures are affected by my Sword of Evil Smiting. Sure it works on demons, but does it also work Sir Nastypants, the despicable but completely non-magical normal human knight?

[Lord Raziere]

What I need to know is which creatures are affected by my Sword of Evil Smiting. Sure it works on demons, but does it also work Sir Nastypants, the despicable but completely non-magical normal human knight?

why do you need smite evil? just because a world has objective cosmic morality doesn't mean those swords exist. you could have the Sword of Demon Smiting and it'd be just as good for the demon, while you have to content your with normal nonmagical sword strikes for the human knight because....they're not magical. they're human and therefore different from a literal incarnation of evil, and thus has a choice about whether they can be evil or not, while the demon has lost its chance forever and thus the magic can effect it. its not as if the evil human knight is all that tough and needing of extra damage, nor is it like you'll be facing any NON-evil people when you fight mortal foes anyways, so all your asking is for extra damage for doing what your already doing.

[NigelWalmsley]

Exactly. Good vs. evil is only one possibly alignment axis. Even in D&D, the alignments were originally restricted to Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic.

It is also the one D&D actually has, and the one this thread is about. It is certainly true that there are mechanics that are kind of like D&D alignment that aren't stupid. That's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Yoda seemed to think there is a good side and a bad side.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Yes, there are multiple Force philosophies. Yes, Yoda like the one he agrees with and doesn't like others. None of that gets you to alignment, let alone the Good/Evil binary you're pushing. There are, for example, characters who don't use the force, and therefore don't fall into this paradigm at all. Han isn't a "Light Side Smuggler" and Boba Fett isn't a "Dark Side Bounty Hunter". They're just a smuggler and a bounty hunter. By far the most reasonable way to model the Star Wars universe is by giving force users "Force Traditions" (of which Jedi and Sith are examples, but there are obviously more in both the old EU and Disney's stuff). You could call those "alignments" if you wanted to, but it's really nothing like D&D's system.

What tag would you suggest is targeted by my previously mentioned Sword of Evil Smiting?

You're missing the point. Is "Cold" an alignment? Are things that create ice "morally Cold"? Of course not, that's absurd. You can group things with declaring that the grouping is moral. What objective morality gets you isn't the ability to smite demons, it's a cosmic horror story about the misalignment between your own moral beliefs and those of the universe. See: The Second Apocalypse and A Practical Guide to Evil. Now, I like both of those stories, but the questions they raise re:morality are very much not the sort of thing you want as the default in a TTRPG.

[JoeJ]

why do you need smite evil? just because a world has objective cosmic morality doesn't mean those swords exist. you could have the Sword of Demon Smiting and it'd be just as good for the demon, while you have to content your with normal nonmagical sword strikes for the human knight because....they're not magical. they're human and therefore different from a literal incarnation of evil, and thus has a choice about whether they can be evil or not, while the demon has lost its chance forever and thus the magic can effect it. its not as if the evil human knight is all that tough and needing of extra damage, nor is it like you'll be facing any NON-evil people when you fight mortal foes anyways, so all your asking is for extra damage for doing what your already doing.

A better question would be, why do you need me to be unable to smite evil? If I want to play in a world where a Sword of Evil Smiting works against demons, devils, evil (but not good) knights, evil (but not good) faeries, and all the other forces of wickedness in the world, why is that not allowed? It's not like having alignment in one game prevents you from playing a different game that's more to your taste. (And Lord Nastypants is a high level NPC who's much tougher than some demons.)

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Yes, there are multiple Force philosophies. Yes, Yoda like the one he agrees with and doesn't like others. None of that gets you to alignment, let alone the Good/Evil binary you're pushing. There are, for example, characters who don't use the force, and therefore don't fall into this paradigm at all. Han isn't a "Light Side Smuggler" and Boba Fett isn't a "Dark Side Bounty Hunter". They're just a smuggler and a bounty hunter. By far the most reasonable way to model the Star Wars universe is by giving force users "Force Traditions" (of which Jedi and Sith are examples, but there are obviously more in both the old EU and Disney's stuff). You could call those "alignments" if you wanted to, but it's really nothing like D&D's system.

Not everybody does use the force, that's true. But if you're going to tell me that there isn't a good vs. evil dynamic among those who do use it, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. (Although admittedly, my understanding of Star Wars is based solely on the three* movies, not the innumerable books, comics, video games, etc.)

You're missing the point. Is "Cold" an alignment? Are things that create ice "morally Cold"? Of course not, that's absurd. You can group things with declaring that the grouping is moral. What objective morality gets you isn't the ability to smite demons, it's a cosmic horror story about the misalignment between your own moral beliefs and those of the universe. See: The Second Apocalypse and A Practical Guide to Evil. Now, I like both of those stories, but the questions they raise re:morality are very much not the sort of thing you want as the default in a TTRPG.

Of course I can group things without declaring that the grouping is moral, but I want some groupings to be moral. What alignment gets me is the ability to play in a world that has objective morality. A world in which the gods or God or the nature of the cosmos itself defines some things, actions, and creatures as good and others as evil. I get that that's not to your taste. Sometimes it isn't to mine either, but sometimes it is.


*That right, three. There are only three Star Wars films.

[JNAProductions]

A better question would be, why do you need me to be unable to smite evil? If I want to play in a world where a Sword of Evil Smiting works against demons, devils, evil (but not good) knights, evil (but not good) faeries, and all the other forces of wickedness in the world, why is that not allowed? It's not like having alignment in one game prevents you from playing a different game that's more to your taste. (And Lord Nastypants is a high level NPC who's much tougher than some demons.)

Not everybody does use the force, that's true. But if you're going to tell me that there isn't a good vs. evil dynamic among those who do use it, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. (Although admittedly, my understanding of Star Wars is based solely on the three* movies, not the innumerable books, comics, video games, etc.)

Of course I can group things without declaring that the grouping is moral, but I want some groupings to be moral. What alignment gets me is the ability to play in a world that has objective morality. A world in which the gods or God or the nature of the cosmos itself defines some things, actions, and creatures as good and others as evil. I get that that's not to your taste. Sometimes it isn't to mine either, but sometimes it is.

*That right, three. There are only three Star Wars films.

So how evil do you have to be for Smite Evil to work on you?

Let's say I steal and cheat on my significant other. Does it work?
What if I steal from orphans specifically?
What if above, but I need to steal to survive?

Or, to ask another question, what does it ADD to the game?

[Lord Raziere]

A better question would be, why do you need me to be unable to smite evil? If I want to play in a world where a Sword of Evil Smiting works against demons, devils, evil (but not good) knights, evil (but not good) faeries, and all the other forces of wickedness in the world, why is that not allowed? It's not like having alignment in one game prevents you from playing a different game that's more to your taste. (And Lord Nastypants is a high level NPC who's much tougher than some demons.)

Why do you need me to leave? I don't need to, 5e's divine strike is the status quo. divine strike is completely alignmentless, just deals radiant damage to everything. 5e paladins pull off the objective morality thing just fine without the thing claimed to be needed. if your going to using the feature on anything you fight anyways (because its not as if you'll be fighting good or neutral thing all that often and even if you do, its unlikely you'll want to use features to INCREASE your damage if your being heroic) you might as well get rid of the meaningless restriction if its just a damage boost to all the enemies you fight. smite evil would only be significant if you fought things OTHER than evil, because it implies a restriction of not being able to use it on enemies that aren't, but if all you do is fight evil its not even a restriction that makes sense to have, because a good person doesn't need "my class feature won't work on somebody" to not use on/harm someone with it. while any GM that makes you think your fighting evil than surprises you with your smite evil not working is just pulling a gotcha on you.

the removal of such elements actually make for a better paladin because it makes sure they have to think about WHY they using the features they have now and what they are using them FOR. its portrays objective morality better, by making sure its something that you can't pass the buck to some mindless detect and destroy mentality that only encourages evil behavior. a paragon of morality is a paragon because of their own decisions and efforts to be a paragon, not because the universe smooths the way for them to become so.

after all, I would not be surprised if detect evil fostered a sense of paranoia in paladins about the people who show up as evil even if they weren't allowed to kill them. after all, it marks the person as "more likely to do something evil" in their eyes and thus gives a paladin a bias in who to blame about something going wrong with no clear culprit. I've seen enough Among Us games to know that being "sus" is a surefire way to get voted off within two rounds regardless of whether they are the imposter or not. and having an evil alignment in a DnD game is great way to be sus, and thus EVIL people can have injustices done TO them just for having that alignment because something went wrong in their area and they had nothing to do with it.

[MoiMagnus]

But being evil overall is not illegal in most places.

Assuming there is no false positive, why wouldn't it?
Why would the law protect evil peoples? Why wouldn't "popular justice" instantly blame evil and push toward making it illegal.

Secondary question: Does discriminating against evil peoples / killing them for no other reason than them being evil makes you more evil or more good, from a cosmological alignment perspective?

A universe were Paladin kill evil at sight is probably a universe in which evil is illegal, or at least the player in question assumed that being evil was illegal in universe (and that the DM should quickly and promptly clarify it if that's not the case).
And while I doubt a lot of tables play with the full ramification and the consequences of this choice, there are probably more tables than you think that play in a setting where being discovered evil is a death penalty.

[NigelWalmsley]

t's not like having alignment in one game prevents you from playing a different game that's more to your taste.

It does actually matter what the default assumption in the books is. And alignment is a bad one. Yes, I could change it. But the default could also be that it doesn't exist and you add it.

But if you're going to tell me that there isn't a good vs. evil dynamic among those who do use it, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. (Although admittedly, my understanding of Star Wars is based solely on the three* movies, not the innumerable books, comics, video games, etc.)

There's a "Light Side"/"Dark Side" dynamic. That's not the same as "Good" and "Evil". There is absolutely a difference between being a Jedi and being a Sith. But even in the original movies, it's not as simple as the Jedi being "Good" and the Sith being "Evil".

What alignment gets me is the ability to play in a world that has objective morality.

No, it doesn't. Because "objective morality" is incoherent. It allows a world with cosmological morality, but again that is a cosmic horror story. If you want knights in shiny armor that fight demons, the words Good and Evil don't need to have a damn thing to do with your mechanics.

[Jason]

Assuming there is no false positive, why wouldn't it?
Why would the law protect evil peoples? Why wouldn't "popular justice" instantly blame evil and push toward making it illegal.

"Popular justice" might very well push for evil being outlawed and a positive test for evil meaning imprisonment or even execution. Mobs can easily be provoked by someone claiming a person detects as evil. Totalitarian states in 5th edition may still outlaw "evil" and try to promote goodthink in their populace with random detect thoughts screenings and the like.

More enlightened rulers, however, will realize that just laws can only punish evil acts, not evil intent. There is also a practical threshold to what behavior should be considered illegal and have laws enforced against it, and this isn't necessarily the same as what constitutes evil behavior or alignment. A person may detect as evil for a lifetime of petty and spiteful actions none of which were individually illegal.

Compassionate leaders will recognize that alignments change and that a person who presently detects as evil from past deeds may redeem themselves and should be given that opportunity so long as they are not doing current harm to a society.

More cynical leaders will realize that such a law could be used against them or against those they favor and will uphold the idea of only punishing evil acts or allowing evil detection to be a factor in determining guilt but not allowing punishment without additional evidence of evil actions.

Where it is discussed in published settings mere detection of evil is not enough by itself for a person to be condemned as a criminal.

[NigelWalmsley]

If "this person detects as evil", doesn't mean they're a bad person, what's the point of having people detect as evil at all?

[Jason]

If "this person detects as evil", doesn't mean they're a bad person, what's the point of having people detect as evil at all?

It does mean they're a bad person at the moment of detection. But as they say in the investment industry "past performance is no guarantee of future results."

[Theoboldi]

If "this person detects as evil", doesn't mean they're a bad person, what's the point of having people detect as evil at all?

I'd assume that them detecting as evil does indeed mean they are a bad person. However, there are still degrees of evil.

If somebody is a jerk and petty bully, you might call them a bad person. But if they were not doing anything otherwise illegal, you wouldn't demand that they be sent to jail or killed for it. Not only can they still be a functioning member of society, there's still every chance that their behavior and ideals will change at some point in the future.

[Jason]

Explain to me why you need an alignment system to have spells not effect people. I'll be over here, casting spells with shapeable areas, or using Fireball on Red Dragons.

You don't need an alignment system to avoid affecting people with spells. You do need an alignment system to avoid affecting people with spells because of their moral state and not some other game effect. Or to affect them because of their moral state.

Funny you mention armor class. Because in the early editions, it worked completely differently from how it does now. And yet the transition from THAC0 to BAB did not break D&D. What feels like D&D is going into dungeons and fighting dragons. Any detail you change is just that: a detail.

Armor class works on exactly the same principles in 5th edition as it always has. It's determined primarily by what armor you're wearing but also affected by dexterity, shields, and enchantments or spells. Heavier armor provides better protection. Armor completely negates blows rather than softening them, and never needs repair no matter how much damage it has deflected. You derive what number an opponent needs to hit you on a d20 from your armor class, and anyone attacking you adds their own combat modifiers to the roll, if any (in 2nd Edition monsters usually had no combat modifiers - their THAC0 gave them a straight to-hit number and you just had to equal or beat that number with a natural roll).

The differences between THAC0 and BaB are mere details in how the to-hit number is derived, not any fundamental change in how armor class works.

[NigelWalmsley]

If somebody is a jerk and petty bully, you might call them a bad person.

I wouldn't call them Evil. If someone isn't at the point where drastic action would be justified to stop them, I don't think calling them "Evil" is really accurate to how the term is used.

You don't need an alignment system to avoid affecting people with spells. You do need an alignment system to avoid affecting people with spells because of their moral state and not some other game effect. Or to affect them because of their moral state.

Alignment doesn't track "moral state", because "moral state" isn't objective. Is someone who steals bread to feed their starving family Good or Evil? If alignment is objectively real, they have to be one or the other (unless you punt and make them Neutral, but that's just not having alignment with more steps). But people don't actually agree which they are in real life, so unless you're prepared to make a universally convincing argument for the morality you encode in alignment, what you are actually doing is creating a setting where people sometimes suffer arbitrarily for doing what's right. And we still haven't figured out what we get from this, aside from the fact that some people apparently really want to write the words "Lawful" and "Good" next to each other on their character sheet.

[hamishspence]

Depends on the setting and the edition.

Eberron material tends to the

"one in three average commoners can be expected to have an evil alignment - and most of those don't deserve to be attacked by adventurers"

view.

[Lord Raziere]

I'd assume that them detecting as evil does indeed mean they are a bad person. However, there are still degrees of evil.

If somebody is a jerk and petty bully, you might call them a bad person. But if they were not doing anything otherwise illegal, you wouldn't demand that they be sent to jail or killed for it. Not only can they still be a functioning member of society, there's still every chance that their behavior and ideals will change at some point in the future.

Then let me propose a hypothetical scenario:

Let us say in a small village there are two shopkeeps. One is a good shopkeep who offers fair prices, and the other is an Evil shopkeep who is only evil because his prices are all about screwing people over but is otherwise a normal guy. the good shopkeep also knows of a prominent child bully who also has an alignment of evil because of that, but is otherwise normal. The good shopkeep knowing that he lives in a cosmic morality world where adventurers kill evil people all the time decides to murder the evil kid bully then frame on the evil shopkeep for it, and the local paladin sheriff detecting the evil shopkeep as evil and therefore more likely to commit an evil act and also having false evidence that the evil shopkeep did it, decides to execute the evil shopkeep lacking a prison as its a small town. the good shopkeep then satisfied with good prevailing, proceeds to keep offering his fair prices knowing he saved people from the evil shopkeep and the child who was a bully.

There is no question that the scenario is unjust. but if the paladin didn't have detect evil, the scenario would actually have the potential to be more just: a paladin with divine sense wouldn't have detect evil to bias their thinking towards the evil shopkeep because of their apparently meaningless alignment. Thus its more likely they would consider investigating further into the situation rather than assuming because someone is evil that they are the person who did it, not having a fact that slants the investigation towards stereotyping. Thus they might investigate more, find out that the good shopkeep did it and punish them instead. There is a reason why they say justice is blind.

[Jason]

Then let me propose a hypothetical scenario:

Let us say in a small village there are two shopkeeps. One is a good shopkeep who offers fair prices, and the other is an Evil shopkeep who is only evil because his prices are all about screwing people over but is otherwise a normal guy.

How does the evil shopkeep stay in business if it's a small village and everyone knows he's crooked?
Also, someone who's entire business is built on evil enough acts to make him evil probably does other evil acts as well.

the good shopkeep also knows of a prominent child bully who also has an alignment of evil because of that, but is otherwise normal.

Does bullying make you evil? I guess that would depend on the extent of the bullying. If you bully someone enough to give you an evil alignment you probably aren't "otherwise normal". You're probably doing all sorts of other evil activities too. But I digress again.

The good shopkeep knowing that he lives in a cosmic morality world where adventurers kill evil people all the time decides to murder the evil kid bully then frame on the evil shopkeep for it, and the local paladin sheriff detecting the evil shopkeep as evil and therefore more likely to commit an evil act and also having false evidence that the evil shopkeep did it, decides to execute the evil shopkeep lacking a prison as its a small town. the good shopkeep then satisfied with good prevailing, proceeds to keep offering his fair prices knowing he saved people from the evil shopkeep and the child who was a bully.

But the good shopkeep changed his alignment to evil. Because you can't murder someone who was doing you no personal harm and frame a business rival, crooked or not, for the murder without an alignment shift. What happens when the local sheriff detects that both shopkeepers are now reading evil, especially if the one didn't detect as evil before?

[Lord Raziere]

How does the evil shopkeep stay in business if it's a small village and everyone knows he's crooked?
Also, someone who's entire business is built on evil enough acts to make him evil probably does other evil acts as well.


Does bullying make you evil? I guess that would depend on the extent of the bullying. If you bully someone enough to give you an evil alignment you probably aren't "otherwise normal". You're probably doing all sorts of other evil activities too. But I digress again.

But the good shopkeep changed his alignment to evil. Because you can't murder someone who was doing you no personal harm and frame a business rival, crooked or not, for the murder without an alignment shift. What happens when the local sheriff detects that both shopkeepers are now reading evil, especially if the one didn't detect as evil before?

Well obviously, the paladin concludes both of them did it and kills them both. Its not as if he can trust an evil person not to throw his evil "partner" under the bus. And even if they aren't, why take the chance that killing only one will spare the other?

So your saying that its just for the shopkeep to sacrifice their own alignment to make sure that two people who have already done unknown evil acts in the past to get punishment on false charges?

[JoeJ]

There is no question that the scenario is unjust. but if the paladin didn't have detect evil, the scenario would actually have the potential to be more just: a paladin with divine sense wouldn't have detect evil to bias their thinking towards the evil shopkeep because of their apparently meaningless alignment. Thus its more likely they would consider investigating further into the situation rather than assuming because someone is evil that they are the person who did it, not having a fact that slants the investigation towards stereotyping. Thus they might investigate more, find out that the good shopkeep did it and punish them instead. There is a reason why they say justice is blind.

Are you saying it's a bad thing that the GM has the ability to use alignment to create a red herring in a murder mystery? If so, are all red herrings bad or only alignment-based ones?

[Theoboldi]

I wouldn't call them Evil. If someone isn't at the point where drastic action would be justified to stop them, I don't think calling them "Evil" is really accurate to how the term is used.

*shrugs*

Then that's a matter of personal definition. Or indeed, how 'evil' is defined in game terms, which need not to have anything to do with real world morality.

Anyways, not interested in partaking in this discussion otherwise. Just figured I'd point out that potential source of miscommunication and alternative interpretation.

[Jason]

Well obviously, the paladin concludes both of them did it and kills them both. Its not as if he can trust an evil person not to throw his evil "partner" under the bus. And even if they aren't, why take the chance that killing only one will spare the other?

If he's Lawful Stupid like Miko, maybe. He won't stay a Paladin very long with that attitude either.

So your saying that its just for the shopkeep to sacrifice their own alignment to make sure that two people who have already done unknown evil acts in the past to get punishment on false charges?

Uh, no, I'm not saying that at all. If your alignment changes to evil from an action that means the action was not justified. You can't sacrifice your alignment in that way. If you are making a truly selfless sacrifice for a justifiable action it won't change your alignment to evil. If you murder someone and set up a business rival to take the fall with the rationalization "they were both evil anyway" you are no longer a good person, because you just did something tremendously unjust.

In fact, the formerly good shopkeeper would register as "stronger" evil than the crooked one, because murdering someone and framing a rival is more evil than cheating someone on the price of their beef jerky. Even a lifetime of cheating people on the price of their beef jerky.

[Lord Raziere]

If he's Lawful Stupid like Miko, maybe. He wouldn't stay a Paladin very long either.

Uh, no, I'm not saying that at all. If your alignment changes to evil from an action that means the action was not justified. You can't sacrifice your alignment. If you are making a truly selfless sacrifice for a justifiable action it won't change your alignment to evil. If you murder someone and set up a business rival to take the fall with the rationalization "they were both evil anyway" you are no longer a good person, because you just did something tremendously unjust.

In fact, the formerly good shopkeeper would register as "stronger" evil than the crooked one, because murdering someone and framing a rival is more evil than cheating someone on the price of their beef jerky.

So? I was never talking about whether or not the paladin's actions were justified. I am merely talking about the effects of Detect Evil and how it creates a bias against evil people, and thus how a paladin with detect evil could be less just than one without it.

I agree with the fact that the shopkeeps actions are unjust. Again, that was never in question. But its not about what we KNOW is right, its about what people in the scenario THINK is right making them deviate from what is morally right, because of the factors presented making them do so.

Problem is you just said that for these two evil people whom the shopkeep murdered and framed, you said that they would have to done other evil acts to earn the alignment, and now your suddenly saying that all the crooked one has done is cheating someone on a price? Which interpretation of evil are holding to? the one where you need to do major evil acts that don't make you a contributing member of society to become evil or minor evil acts that keep you a contributing member of society?

[JoeJ]

Which interpretation of evil are holding to? the one where you need to do major evil acts that don't make you a contributing member of society to become evil or minor evil acts that keep you a contributing member of society?

How about one in which the degree of nuance that exists in the cosmic definition of evil, whatever it is, is known to those people who can magically detect evil, and those people take that nuance into account when they decide how to act?

[Jason]

So? I was never talking about whether or not the paladin's actions were justified. I am merely talking about the effects of Detect Evil and how it creates a bias against evil people, and thus how a paladin with detect evil could be less just than one without it.

Your example is only one hypothetical, however. What about all the times where detect evil is actively useful in detecting a criminal? Which is more likely to happen more often?

I agree with the fact that the shopkeeps actions are unjust. Again, that was never in question. But its not about what we KNOW is right, its about what people in the scenario THINK is right making them deviate from what is morally right, because of the factors presented making them do so.

I don't think it's possible for someone who is good aligned to believe that it is morally acceptable to murder someone and set up a business rival "because they are evil."

Likewise the paladin can't possibly really believe he is really acting for the best if he doesn't fully investigate a crime with the excuse of "I found someone evil in the vicinity so that's good enough".

Problem is you just said that for these two evil people whom the shopkeep murdered and framed, you said that they would have to done other evil acts to earn the alignment, and now your suddenly saying that all the crooked one has done is cheating someone on a price? Which interpretation of evil are holding to? the one where you need to do major evil acts that don't make you a contributing member of society to become evil or minor evil acts that keep you a contributing member of society?

I was merely pointing out how unlikely it is for someone to be evil in just one aspect of their life. Your hypothetical required such people, however.

I would say that either one or two major seriously evil acts or many minor petty evil acts are enough to make you evil, and that it's possible in either case for them to be evil acts but not illegal acts.