Does evil mean Evil? Is a paladin free to act against evil?

[Thornir Alekeg]

OK, I'll bite. With the caveat that my answers only describe how I would react if I played a paladin, and how I would expect paladins in my campaign to act.

A paladin is not obliged to take a prisoner if he does not have the resources to do so. In my view, he may take any of the following actions with honor:

1. He may inform his foe that he is unable to take prisoners, and he should fight to the death or attempt to flee.

2. He may make it a condition of surrender that the foe immediately submits to justice for his past misdeeds. This may include the death penalty, if he has committed sufficient evil.

3. He may show mercy and allow the foe to leave unharmed. Who knows, this could be the turning point that redeems a formerly evil creature. It's this little thing called faith, you see.

With respect to the cleric of the evil god, the paladin should not immediately resort to violence. However, he should be suspicious, question him, watch him carefully, report him to the authorities or even bring him back for questioning himself if the cleric is being secretive or evasive. This may involve inflicting nonlethal damage on the cleric. Evil creatures have the right to life, dignity and freedom as well, and if the evil cleric is simply out for a stroll, the paladin should not stop him. However, he should always be ready to act once he threatens to commit evil.

Excellent answers! I am in complete agreement with them.

 

[Kemrain]

The subduing problems would be much easier to deal with if those Paladin Orders would simply issue Merciful Saps of Shocking. Instant Taser.

- Kemrain the Electric.

I must say that this thread is wonderful. So in depth and well thought out, with little aggression. Bravo.

- Kemrain the Appreciative.

 

[takyris]

Hey, Universe! First off, to clarify, you're the DM in question?

But why was it attacking her? Not because it enjoyed attacking things (not evil is murder, btw). It was attacking her, because it was ordered to attack a caravan by his leader (who, by the way, was lawful good). I delight in difficult moral conundrums, and this was one of them. Neither the caravan being attacked, nor the refugees attacking them in this case were completely good or completely evil. Furthermore, the thing didn't attack her until she ran screaming at it with sword swinging.

Well, based on her post, her low-level party was attacked by a bunch of things, she used Detect Evil to get a likely ping target, and then she attacked. The ping target was in fact part of the people attacking, yes?

As for delighting in difficult moral conundrums, yay. I personally like difficult moral conundrums, but I don't really consider this situation one of them. Even in the complex and morally ambiguous world of reality, if a group of people attack you with deadly force, you're fully justified in fighting back. And if you have a gun when the people attacking you are using knives, you're allowed to use it.

I tend to think that there are degrees of evil--so Yes, had this been a mind flayer, she would have been alright. But this was a sentient humanoid with the capacity for redemption. Mind Flayers aren't even walking the same path.

Well, that's just species-ist. What about those difficult moral conundrums of yours? You're judging it differently because it's ugly. Mind Flayers are certainly sentient, and there do exist mind flayers who are not evil. And yet, because most mind flayers are evil, and because mind flayers are dangerous enough that wasting a round asking "Hey, just to confirm, you're an evil mind flayer, right?" when a mind flayer attacks you is a good way to end up a bit lighter in the cranial regions.

Perhaps she might have gotten a clue when, out of 20-30 people attacking the caravan, only 5-10 pinged evil?

I'm confused as to your point here, no offense intended. As per one of my earlier posts: If someone attacks me with lethal force, I am under no obligation to endanger myself trying to redeem them. If I can use less force to subdue them, that's great, but legally and morally, innocent sentient beings are entitled to defend themselves. Even if my attackers mistakenly thought I was somebody else. Even if they thought I was a criminal and they were executing what they thought was vigilante justice. Even if they're attacking me because I'm with somebody who has committed a wrong against them, I'm entitled to defend myself from their lethal attacks. This is not a moral conundrum, or at least, I don't consider it much of one.

See above re: mind flayers. And I apologize for allowing detect evil to detect people of the alignment. If I have so offended your sensibilities by allowing paladins a little extra power for their strict codes of conduct, than I apologize. As many DMs are wont to do, I do not always do everything BY THE BOOK.

Don't apologize to me, and don't apologize for that. If you're going to apologize, make it to the player you dealt with unfairly by telling her that somebody who was attacking her was evil and then penalizing her for defending herself and her friends.

Now, if he was attacking only because he was starving and because the caravan group had done something wrong to him or his people, then he wasn't evil. Vengeance isn't pretty, but it's not evil until you start harming innocent people in order to accomplish it. If ninja-boy here has been done wrong by the caravan, and he sees the caravan, and he decides to attack for the sake of vengeance and to get some food, then he wouldn't detect as evil unless he also enjoys torturing small animals in his spare time or something. If this kind of "Not a devil-worshipper, just desperate" mentality is what you wanted, then "Chaotic Neutral" is a fine fit, and even just "Neutral" works pretty well. This guy didn't feel that the law would help him, and he wanted somebody dead for what had apparently been done to him in the past. Again, that's not a good and saintly alignment, but all by itself, it ain't evil.

I think there is a misunderstanding, here. This was not a lone ninja, attacking out of the shadows, murdering for a piece of bread. This was an attack by 20-30 refugees against a caravan for 1) redress of earlier events, in which the caravan had done some not-nice things to the ninjas and refugees, and 2) food.

And, going by general alignments, some of these refugees just wanted food (Neutral), and some wanted food and vengeance (Chaotic Neutral), and some just wanted vengenace (CN), and some wanted food, vengeance, and the opportunity to inflict pain on people because hurting things makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside (CE or NE). If that's not what you intended -- if you hadn't intended for some of the refugee-ninjas to be sadists who would have attacked any caravan to get food, if only their friends would go along with them, then you did wrong by making them evil.

How do you know the Caravan, or even the PCs, were innocent? These events didn't happen in a vacuum. By your logic, anybody fighting in a war would ping evil, because GI Joe across the trench never did anything to HIM in particular.

War is primarily a battle between a whole bunch of Neutral people. There are evil people on both sides, people who enjoy inflicting pain, and there are good people on both sides, people who are fighting for a cause they believe in against a force they believe to be evil.

How do I know that the Caravan/PCs were innocent? Well, there's a paladin in the party, and I'm kind of assuming that if you were willing to ding her for smiting a truthfully evil opponent who was attacking her, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you'd ding her for associating with evil people. Ergo, the caravan can't be composed of mind flayers and blackguards. Now, if you tried to go for moral ambiguity by saying "Well, the caravan had done something horrific to the refugees, and the refugees are just attacking for vengeance, but I'll have some of the refugees detect as evil while none of the caravan people do," then your moral conundrum hinges entirely on you yanking the alignment chain back and forth a bunch.

Here are the possibilities I see, based on what you and the player have said:

Caravan generally good, Refugees generally evil: In this case, the paladin was right. Smite away.

Caravan generally evil, Refugees generally good: In this case, why did the caravan people not detect as evil while the refugees did? If this was a giant setup involving false alignment auras, then all the paladin is guilty of is trusting in the magical divine power her deity gave her. If that refugee turns out to not be evil, even though he detected as such, she should make redress and feel awful, but she didn't knowingly commit an evil action by any stretch. She got played. She should go after the players, who are indirectly guilty for the non-evil refugee's death, whereas she is directly responsible but not guilty.

Caravan neutral, refugees neutral: Why did some of the refugees detect as evil, again? If it's because they were the sadists, while most of the refugees were attacking just for food and what they saw as redress for wrongs, then the paladin did the right thing by attacking the evil ones first. The ones attacking for food can be subdued, if that's possible and not dangerous for the party, but the ones who are going to torture if given the chance don't merit that kind of special treatment, unless the paladin is so much more powerful than they are that she can afford to pull her punches. And the player did say "low level". Again, smite away on the evil folks, who were part of a group attacking the PCs with lethal force.

Ninja wasn't the guy's class--it was the in-game description of what he looked like. All black clothes with a mask pulled up over his face. Furthermore, you have no IDEA why his alignment is evil. It MIGHT be because he's a murderer, but it also might not--not all evil things are killers, Tacky.

Doesn't matter, Universe. In D&D-land, f you're travelling on the road and somebody attacks you with lethal force, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force, and if you have a special ability that allows you to punch harder when punching an evil person, and you also have an ability to detect evil people, and you see an evil person in the group attacking you, how exactly is using a special ability designed to help you hit evil things harder... to hit an evil thing harder... a nonpaladinic idea? Please describe to me the form of evil this ninja-dude has that makes the paladin wrong to smite the evil person that is attacking her. If what you meant for this ninja to be was "mean, but not a sadistic person who enjoys inflicting pain for his personal benefit", then you slapped him with the wrong alignment.

Anyway, what you are essentially arguing is that she was justified in killing someone, who struck BACK at her after she charged him, because she mis-percieved the situation. It's not like I was trying to hide the extra details so that she would lose her paladin abilities--that's just asinine. Instead, I was setting up an important plot point, that has stuck with them throughout the campaign.

The evil person was part of the group that was attacking, though, right? That's what the player sort of implied. He was in the group that was attacking, and he was evil, and evil as defined in the book means that he enjoys inflicting pain on innocents and/or has no problem hurting innocents to advance his own position. The fact that she struck this particular person first is not relevant to the discussion. If a paladin is attacked by twelve people, does she have to let each of the twelve attack her before striking that one back? Or can we assume that in a generally intelligent campaign, the paladin can say, "Well, hey, I'm going to assume that all twelve of these people are trying to kill me, based on the fact that many of them are firing arrows and many of them are charging forward with axes. I should fight back against all of them. Hey, that one is evil. I have abilities that work better on evil people. Since I can safely assume that they're all hostile, based on the fact that they're in a group that is attacking me, I should use my abilities to their best advantage."

The paladin's actions here were as unpaladinic and fall-worthy as flanking in a mass-combat situation.

I am sorry if I came off as a bit angry, but it was my game, and I don't like to see the way I run things attacked with so little regard for the entirety of the situation.

Hey, whenever I hear a "The DM screwed me" story, I like to get the other side as well. There could well be more information that changes my mind. Right now, though, it sounds like you wanted moral ambiguity but didn't put the right alignments in place to get it. Moral ambiguity is tough to deliver when the situation begins with "the party is attacked". Even if it's a bunch of neutral people attacking them, the paladin isn't under any obligation to not fight back, or to only fight back with subdual damage. Her life was in danger, as far as I can see based on the current information, and she defended herself to the best of her abilities, and any kind of "let's try to get the bloodshed stopped and figure out what everyone's interests are" kind of instincts are ruled null and void when she senses that several of the attackers are outright evil. If it turns out that the evil guy was evil because he kicks children for fun or something, and his attack on the caravan was motivated solely by the desire for food and vengeance, then... well... that's a definite interesting setup, but the paladin is still justified in defending herself against an attacking group. And she's justified in using the best tactical means in doing so, like attacking the lightly armored people first, flanking her opponents, or smiting the people who detect as evil.

 

[Silveras]

I think the wide variety of answers in this thread illustrates the point that any DM who has a Paladin PC or NPC in the campaign needs to sit down and spell out just what these things mean. It is not a bad idea, at all, to do so for all campaigns; because others besides Paladins can detect evil.

Points to consider in your cosmology:

• Is Necromancy inherently evil ?
• Are "usually Evil" races born that way, or raised ? Is there Free Will, or not ?
• Can evil be redeemed ?
• Is it the Paladin's role to redeem, or is that not his/her function ?

Points to consider in your nation-building:

• Is there one official Church ?
• What kind of authority does that Church have to mete out death ?
• Are there laws against random use of detection spells ? Should there be ?

And, of course, the DM and Player should work out the details of the Paladin's code. There are many options here... some Paladins may put "defend the weak" above "punish the wicked", others may see it the other way.

 

[The_Universe]

I won't go through quoting all of Tacky's posts, because that would make this ungodly long.

1) Yes--I was the DM in the Ninja/Caravan situation, and continue to DM the game.

2) The Caravan was not attacked while they were moving--the PCs had spent a great deal of time setting up traps, etc. hoping to draw the percieved enemy in. This was not a malicious, surprise attack. The refugees walked into a trap that the PCs (in one of their better moments) had carefully created.

3) At the beginning of the combat, the Paladin was not defending herself--they were sneaking in (for food), and she saw them, and attacked the closest one. He stabbed at her AFTER she had already smacked him a good one, and made an attempt to disengage, during which he was smote (smited?). He pinged evil, but the fact that only a minority of the attackers did should have clued her in to the fact that something was at least little off. Then, after having struck him down, and AFTER she realized that the attackers were starving (and having already been clued in that there may have been some wrongdoing on the parts of the Caravan), she laughed, and said it was no big deal--he was "evil."

It really goes back to whether you're justified in killing things, just because they are "evil." This was not a case of self-defense, but rather an evil NPC defending himself because he had already been attacked, for no better reason than being present, and evil.

4) This was not an attempt to screw the player. She has a code that we worked out, together, and attacking without questioning was clearly out-of-bounds, within the code that she helped work out. Paladins SHOULD defend the weak and hunt Evil, but this was not a clear-cut case of doing so, as I hope I have made clear above. I didn't make a big deal about it, or admonish her in any extreme way, I just noted that it probably wasn't cool, and said she'd have to be extra good for a while if she wanted the paladin abilities back.

5) The loss of abilities lasted less than a full session. This was not an action that made the Light cry out for the terrible injustice of it--it just wasn't very paladin-like, as paladins are supposed to be IMC. So, she lost the ability to smite for 3 hours. A relatively minor punishment, and it let her know what was out of bounds for the future.

6) I think you and I just have entirely different definitions of what is evil, as well as what is Evil. Mind Flayers are always evil, making them Evil, IMC. Things like humans, goblins, gnolls, orcs, and hobgoblins are usually evil, which means they get an extra shot at redemption, unless they have somehow proven that they are Evil, rather than just evil. I don't expect Paladin's to try to redeem Demons, Devils, or Chromatic Dragons (for example), but I do expect them to take a hint when I make it explicit that they should roll a spot check (so that they can see that the ninja attacking them is emaciated).

In this case, the guy was not a cold-blooded murderer--he was a thief who had been stealing extra food from his own people (until they ran out completely). He was sneaky, he was pretty good with his sword, and he was certainly not just neutral--he was just petty, self serving, and cruel. I think that counts as evil, and for you, that might just be neutral.

I guess I subscribe to something closer to the active morality codes of Dragonstar than I do to the "Kill the Evil things" of what is apparently a great deal more common. With so much magic in DnD that can mask, hide, or change alignments, acting on what Detect Evil says without question just seems...wrong. Detect Evil is a useful tool for Paladins, but it's hardly enough for them to base an entire moral compass upon. Just like everything else, it's fallible.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I think the wide variety of answers in this thread illustrates the point that any DM who has a Paladin PC or NPC in the campaign needs to sit down and spell out just what these things mean. It is not a bad idea, at all, to do so for all campaigns; because others besides Paladins can detect evil.

Points to consider in your cosmology:

• Is Necromancy inherently evil ?
• Are "usually Evil" races born that way, or raised ? Is there Free Will, or not ?
• Can evil be redeemed ?
• Is it the Paladin's role to redeem, or is that not his/her function ?

Points to consider in your nation-building:

• Is there one official Church ?
• What kind of authority does that Church have to mete out death ?
• Are there laws against random use of detection spells ? Should there be ?

And, of course, the DM and Player should work out the details of the Paladin's code. There are many options here... some Paladins may put "defend the weak" above "punish the wicked", others may see it the other way.

Amen to that! I have to admit this thread has been excellent for making me think about the things I need to discuss with my player who runs a paladin. I've thought and talked with him about some things, but there are aspects that we have not really touched on. They have not been issues, but mostly just because so far the situations have not come up.

This is why I love these boards, thanks everyone.

 

[takyris]

I won't go through quoting all of Tacky's posts, because that would make this ungodly long.

Heh. Ditto.

1) Cool. Always good to get another perspective.

2) Aha. Difference in description. Based on what the player said, I was imagining an ambush by the ninjae. I'm not sure how this happened, though. Did the caravan see that they were going to be attacked and then set up defenses, or did they try to lure these guys in and then ambush them? In any case, this is a lot more gray than "our caravan got ambushed", which is how I read the earlier post.

3) Aha again. Sneaking in for food is definitely different. I was imagining arrows and such. If an evil creature is part of a unit that is attacking you, I think that the paladin is fine. This, again, muddies the waters. Definitely different.

4) Establishing code with player == Excellent.

5) Non-permanent ability loss == Excellent. I'd imagined the "Now you're a fighter, best of luck to you" approach. This is, again, very different.

6) One part I will quote:

I think you and I just have entirely different definitions of what is evil, as well as what is Evil. Mind Flayers are always evil, making them Evil, IMC. Things like humans, goblins, gnolls, orcs, and hobgoblins are usually evil, which means they get an extra shot at redemption, unless they have somehow proven that they are Evil, rather than just evil. I don't expect Paladin's to try to redeem Demons, Devils, or Chromatic Dragons (for example), but I do expect them to take a hint when I make it explicit that they should roll a spot check (so that they can see that the ninja attacking them is emaciated).

See, in my mind, that's a difference that you're free to put in, but you should make it clear that such a difference is, well, different. I agree that, by the core rules, the fact that a low-level cleric of an evil deity (say, the god of death, and the cleric tries to help lead souls to the afterlife and is against both undead and resurrection, and also against going to great lengths to subdue rather than kill -- True Neutral, maybe) and a mid-level evil fighter (who is a murderer, a thief, a devil-worshipper, and so forth, and who would kick a puppy if it got in his way) both detect as "Minor Evil". I would prefer that Detect Evil have two facets -- one for "degree of evilness" and one for "amount of evil magical energy present", so that the neutral cleric of the evil god would have a ton of evil magical energy around him, but not the "Aha, this guy kicks puppies" aura of person evilness himself.

Unfortunately, by the game rules, the paladin's character had no way of knowing that this guy wasn't a murdering baby-killer. However, the new information about the situation puts it in a different light, so the evil guy is, while attempting to steal, not doing his evil right there on the spot, and wasn't attacking. That's certainly a case where investigation, rather than smiting, might be in order.

In this case, the guy was not a cold-blooded murderer--he was a thief who had been stealing extra food from his own people (until they ran out completely). He was sneaky, he was pretty good with his sword, and he was certainly not just neutral--he was just petty, self serving, and cruel. I think that counts as evil, and for you, that might just be neutral.

If he's stealing food in order to have more for himself, because food is running low I'd classify it as borderline, personally. But if he's also cruel in addition to his pettiness (ie, he doesn't feel guilty about stealing the food -- he's thinking, "Stupid idiots -- I deserve this, because they're too dumb to catch me!"), then I'd bump him into evil. That's a judgment call, though.

I guess I subscribe to something closer to the active morality codes of Dragonstar than I do to the "Kill the Evil things" of what is apparently a great deal more common.

Well, in 3E, it's listed variously as being based on history, intent, and personality in some combination. Thus, a person who did evil things in the past and has a personality that predisposes him to do evil things might detect as evil even if he isn't actively looking to do something evil. It kind of sets up two kinds of evil people -- the people who I think of as assassins, and the people who I think of as time bombs. Assassins (or evil clerics, or wizards who want to be liches) are going to go out and do some evil because they want to. They plan it, they're happy about it, they're up and ready for some evil, baby. The Time Bombs, though, are people with anger management issues. They don't really plan, they don't think of themselves as evil, they just go crazy when something gets in their way. Your usual psychotic barbarian or antisocial rogue. They detect as evil despite not having the intent to do evil, because they have a history of doing evil and a willingness to do evil.

If that ninja-dude had history and willingness but not intent, maybe that should have pinged something different with the paladin by your house rules? Maybe you want to differentiate between time bombs and assassins?

Dunno. Tricky all around.

 

[ph0rk]

3) At the beginning of the combat, the Paladin was not defending herself--they were sneaking in (for food), and she saw them, and attacked the closest one. He stabbed at her AFTER she had already smacked him a good one, and made an attempt to disengage, during which he was smote (smited?). He pinged evil, but the fact that only a minority of the attackers did should have clued her in to the fact that something was at least little off. Then, after having struck him down, and AFTER she realized that the attackers were starving (and having already been clued in that there may have been some wrongdoing on the parts of the Caravan), she laughed, and said it was no big deal--he was "evil."

It really goes back to whether you're justified in killing things, just because they are "evil." This was not a case of self-defense, but rather an evil NPC defending himself because he had already been attacked, for no better reason than being present, and evil.

I am uncertain if the raiders were harming the caravan, but if not, clearly the paladin acted dishonorably at best; killing things because they don't 'ping good' is an evil all its own.

Unless defending an innocent, a paladin needs to be careful when they strike first - just wearing the "kiss me i'm a paladin" t-shirt doesn't make all their actions inherently good.

Also, won't detect evil detect a powerful evil enchantment cast on an NPC? Whatever their actual alignment?

Were I an evil caster I would delight in laying such spells on the pure of heart sure to stroll across the paladin's path; if for no other reason than to cause him/her mental anguish once he/she realized who/what was killed.

A depressed mopey soul-searching paladin is much easier to kill, after all.

 

[Quasqueton]

Since I started the thread, I'll answer it my way now.

The way I handle it is pretty much right out of the core rules:

Evil (as detected by detect evil) means Evil. The creature/person with an Evil alignment is Evil. Not "misunderstood", not of a "different philosophy", not "naughty", not "not-good" -- Evil. Has done Evil, will do Evil.

"Not good" (read: Neutral) is not Evil. One mistake does not make one Evil. The Chaotic Good rogue in the paladin's party has nothing to fear of the paladin, if he is truly Chaotic Good. Those who write CG on their character sheet and then act CE in the game are a whole other problem and discussion.

Someone who hasn't done Evil for fear of getting caught is like someone who hasn't done Good for fear of putting their neck out for someone -- in other words: is not Evil (or not Good).

A paladin has the right and duty to destroy evil. That is his job. That is why the Lawful and Good powers of the universe invest him with the powers to detect and smite evil. You don't appoint a police force and then expect them to sit on their hands.

The "wolf" may not be stalking the "herd" at this moment (because he's currently full, tired, or otherwise busy), but to ensure the safety of the "herd", the "shepherd" has the right and duty to strike and kill or drive off the "wolf". [Wolf = Evil, herd = innocent/peaceful people, shepherd = paladin.]

But. . .a paladin would be wise to ensure that nothing bad would come (to him or others) of killing the Evil creature/person. Although the universal powers would probably approve of killing an Evil priest sitting in a tavern, the civil authorities will probably not be too happy with the act. (Since so many people have twisted this wilderness encounter into a city encounter.) A paladin can be arrested, tried, and even executed by normal city authorities if he strikes down someone without tangible evidence. A paladin should act within the (good and just) laws to erradicate Evil as far as possible without allowing Evil to be Evil unchecked.

If a paladin met an Evil whatever in the wilderness, the Evil whatever cannot escape the paladin's smite by simply refusing to fight. Lawful is not stupid either. If the Evil whatever refuses to fight, then the paladin gets an easy smite. Maybe it is Evil who is dumb.

So long as the paladin is sure of his target, and is sure nothing bad (not necessarily Evil) will come of the smite, he can and should attack and destroy an Evil he encounters. Doing so ensures the overall Good of the world.

A paladin can try to redeem someone he thinks worth it. And if the attempt is successful, the paladin deserves applause. But an attempt at redemption is not required.

Fighters fight. Barbarians rage. Wizards study magic. Rogues sneak. Paladins smite Evil.

Quasqueton

 

[Thotas]

Queen Dopelpopolis' DM held her paladin morally responsible to allow for circumstances she had no way of knowing about. By that standard, if you've ever done anything at all in your life, you're probably evil. Say you bought the last of item x at your local grocery store. Next person who wanted it had to go to another store. On that trip, they died in a traffic accident. They'd still be alive if you hadn't bought the last one, you murderer!