Ack! An alignment thread!

[maggot]

Ok, so we have this problem in our game. The cleric just got true seeing, and now casts it and sees everyone's alignment. He is stated to be Lawful Good. He sees some guard is Lawful Evil. The cleric kills the guard. Is this a non-good act on the part of the cleric?

Two sided argument

(Cleric's argument) This is guard did something to be Evil and will continue doing those things, otherwise he wouldn't be Evil, merely neutral. Letting this guard continue on being Evil would make for more evil in the world.

(DM's argument) Wandering around looking at people's aura and playing god by killing those that radiate Evil seems very non-Good. At a minimum, it certainly isn't Lawful because the whole reason the cleric doesn't have the guy arrested is because radiating an Evil aura is not illegal.

Any help?

 

[Camarath]

Ok, so we have this problem in our game. The cleric just got true seeing, and now casts it and sees everyone's alignment. He is stated to be Lawful Good. He sees some guard is Lawful Evil. The cleric kills the guard. Is this a non-good act on the part of the cleric?

First I don't see how True Seeing allows the cleric to see everyone's alignment.

True Seeing
Divination
Level: Clr 5, Drd 7, Knowledge 5, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)
You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are. The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things. Further, the subject can focus its vision to see into the Ethereal Plane (but not into extradimensional spaces). The range of true seeing conferred is 120 feet.
True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects. It in no way confers X-ray vision or its equivalent. It does not negate concealment, including that caused by fog and the like. True seeing does not help the viewer see through mundane disguises, spot creatures who are simply hiding, or notice secret doors hidden by mundane means. In addition, the spell effects cannot be further enhanced with known magic, so one cannot use true seeing through a crystal ball or in conjunction with clairaudience/clairvoyance.
Material Component: An ointment for the eyes that costs 250 gp and is made from mushroom powder, saffron, and fat.

 

[Camarath]

Two sided argument

(Cleric's argument) This is guard did something to be Evil and will continue doing those things, otherwise he wouldn't be Evil, merely neutral. Letting this guard continue on being Evil would make for more evil in the world.

(DM's argument) Wandering around looking at people's aura and playing god by killing those that radiate Evil seems very non-Good. At a minimum, it certainly isn't Lawful because the whole reason the cleric doesn't have the guy arrested is because radiating an Evil aura is not illegal.

Any help?

Second a few questions.
Is random killing an evil act?
Are good clerics responable for redeeming the lost or evil?
How would the cleric feel if other clerics started kill other people because they are chaotic?
What does the dogma of the cleric's church say about such actions?
Does being greedy, pettily cruel, or other minor evil actions make one evil in your world?
Is it ok to kill Orc children?
Is it ok to kill evil Human children?
Is it ok to kill anyone one believes one is justified in killing?
Does the cleric have the legal and religious authority to summary kill anyone he wishes?
Should the punishment for every wrong doing be death?
If someone is kill innocent people because he believes they are evil is commiting evil acts?
How absolute is alignment in your world?
Is a deed good or evil because of what you do or why you do it?

Personally I think slaughtering people based solely on alignment is an evil act and if murder is illegal then it is likely to be chaotic as well.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I don't think people can go around doing random killing of evil beings if they are Lawful as well as Good. The lawful component of their alignment should prohibit such behavior. A lawful person would more than likely start to watch the individual to build a case against them.

You also have to remember it is possible to be evil only by harboring evil thoughts and never actually committing an evil act.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The problem is most likely caused by differing views of what it means to have an evil alignment/to radiate evil.

The player's argument assumes that to have an evil alignment requires being guilty of at least one capital crime and being likely to continue to be guilty of more in the future.

The DM's argument assumes but doesn't explicitly state that it's much easier to be evil than that. A lawful evil character could be a baker who uses zoning regulations to keep soup kitchens far away form his business (if the hungry are given bread, they won't buy it) or who conspires with other bakers to fix the price of bread at an artificially high level. A lawful evil guard could simply be willing to take bribes to look the other way and/or extort money from powerless citizens. A schoolyard bully could be chaotic evil even though the worst things he does is disrespect his parents and teachers and beat up nerds for fun and normal kids for lunch money. (Bad things to be sure and definitely deserving of a sound beating at the hands of an underestimated nerd but not deserving of death).

This needs to be spelled out or misunderstandings like the players' will be commonplace. After all, if Detect Evil only detects EEEVEEEIL (as it did in 2e and continues to do in the house rules of many DMs if comments on this board are any indicator), the player is right. One can't begin to radiate EEEVEEEIL without doing and continuing to do some very very bad things (which generally either are or ought to be capital crimes).

I suppose there is another possible interpretation of the player's argument: that by killing every evil individual, he can reduce the amount of evil in the world and that it's therefore justified. I can't claim to have much sympathy for this idea myself and I think it falls down in several places.

First, it assumes far too high a view of humanity's (and demihumanity's) natural moral state. It seems to bear at least the seeds of the idea that evil can be wholly eliminated from the constitution of sentient, civilized beings (and this can be done by the sword, no less). While anthropology will naturally vary from game to game, this seems like an incredibly naieve and optimistic view of human nature. On the other hand, if evil is deeply rooted in human nature, and is widespread in the population, such a programme is infeasible. It requires that too much power be placed in the hands of the alignment sensing and death dealing individual who is himself tempted to evil and may well give into that temptation. And no one less than a god or an archangel could be trusted with such power. It also assumes that a society violently deprived of all its evil members would continue to function. If the cost of eliminating the evil members of a society is higher than the damage they do, there's a good utilitarian argument for leaving them there. For these reasons and others, most societies--and most good people--IRL are satisfied to allow evil people to survive in their communities as long as they keep their evil banal and low-level. Lying can be tolerated to a certain point. The twisting of laws and contracts can be tolerated to a certain point. Murder? That's generally too much. To defend a weaker version of Kant's famous claim, a decent society could contain a fair number of devils as long as the societies laws and customs were constructed so as to keep their evil tendencies in check and to channel their energies into productive pursuits.

Second, the latter interpretation of the player's view leaves no room for the possibility of repentance, forgiveness, and reformation. While, these are arguably primarily Christian concepts and it's probably not wise to tie the D&D idea of good too closely to the Christian one, my impression is that a completely inflexible and unforgiving version of "good" (Javert's values in Les Miserables would be an example of such a code) is supposed to be Lawful Neutral rather than Good.

Finally, it assumes a particular kind of consequentialism--that the action which results in the least amount of evil being in the world is always the right action. (And therefore, the murder of an evil person who did nothing worthy of death is justified since said evil person would have been responsible for a greater amount of evil than one murder). There are a lot of problems with this view (although not so many that no respected RL philosophers espouse it). It seems to depend upon a kind of quantification of evil that is difficult to make plausible (If the person commits x evil acts per year, then, it's acceptable to contribute Y to the world's total evil by murdering him as long as Y < X (average life expectancy-person's age). (The player would also have to assume that Y is the dividing line between a person who has an evil alignment and a person who doesn't if this were to justify killing everyone who radiated evil)).

It requires an unrealistic knowledge of the future results of current events. (If a man in 1943 saw Stalin, is Stalin's death more likely to lead to the liberation of the Russian people from his tyrannical grip and prevent the creation of the Eastern block/Iron curtain which imprisoned millions more or would that inaction be more likely to lead to Hitler defeating the leaderless Russian forces and the Nazi party remaining in control of all of Europe until the mid 21st century (the communist bloc falling before the end of the 20th century)? It's hard to say what's more likely and that's the point: such calculations are too tenative to function as guides for action).

Bottom line: Unless the DM changes the rules so that only those guilty of capital crimes have evil alignments, PCs shouldn't kill people just because they detect as evil.

 

[WattsHumphrey]

First I don't see how True Seeing allows the cleric to see everyone's alignment.

Wow... I didn't realize that wasn't in the SRD. I know in 3.0, it was a bonus in the PH (I dunno about the SRD) that only clerics got. "See alignment" wasn't something the arcane casters of the same spell got.

As for in 3.5, now I'm curious and'll have to check my PH to see if that bonus of the spell is still in there.

 

[Halivar]

If not evil, than at least moving towards chaotic. I'd bump the cleric to NG pretty much right away, and to CG if such actions persist.

 

[Brian Chalian]

He is stated to be Lawful Good. He sees some guard is Lawful Evil. The cleric kills the guard. Is this a non-good act on the part of the cleric?

It is a LG act, as described by the 3.0 Monster Manual, page 127.

Lammasu:
"They do not tolerate the presence of evil beings, attacking them on sight."

That is the standard behavior pattern of this always LG monster, so the cleric's argument is correct by the rules.

The DM can, of course, change the rules.

 

[Knight Otu]

It is a LG act, as described by the 3.0 Monster Manual, page 127.

Maybe it's just a LG act for lamassu?

 

[pyk]

Lammasu:
"They do not tolerate the presence of evil beings, attacking them on sight."

Taken out of context, this would seem to be a standard behaiviour pattern for all LG characters. However, adding the rest of the flavour text, being that a Lammasu is a solitary being that normally dwells in abandoned temples and ruins, and that characters seek out the lammasu for help, indicates that the lammasu's actions of attacking evil out of hand is based on the evil creature tresspassing on it's territory. This makes it a lawful act, as well as good, as it can be presumed that the evil creature was there to attack the lammasu.

Now, the cleric in question. The LE guard obviously did not attack the cleric first, or you would have mentioned this. The LE guard was not tresspassing on the cleric's territory, as the guard was at his post. The guard was working for someone, being easily presumed not to be the mayor of the city, lord of the castle, etc. Therefore, I can be safe in assuming that there is a law in this particular land that killing, attacking, harming a guard that is on duty is a criminal act. The cleric, therefore, was performing an illegal act, and to be Lawful Good requires the character to follow the laws of the land. Had the cleric been in his own temple, then killing an evil character would have been justified.

This one act in and of itself would not justify an alignment change, but it should illicite a warning from the cleric's god that further acts in kind will. And, depending on the god, the alignment can usually be one shift off. However, some gods do not tolerate the alignment being off at all, and may strip the cleric of his powers for an alignment change.