Evil character wielding an holy weapon for a Good purpose

[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.