Elder-Basilisk said:
I think it basically comes down to the fact that Takyris, Quaseton, et al, believe the core rules specify that evil alignment=deserving death and everything else that they say is based off of that premise.
True. That is what I believe.
If it doesn't deserve killing, it wouldn't radiate evil. If it radiates evil, it deserves killing. When confronted with examples of people who fit the description of evil alignments--people who are out for themselves, who will do anything they can get away with regardless of whom it hurts, or who enjoy hurting people, but who represent fairly commonplace types of individuals who ordinary people wouldn't consider killing for the evil they exhibit, they either:
Cute -- but when you presented me with your examples, I either said "shouldn't detect as evil" or "should detect as evil, and should then be okay to smite".
A. Beg off the question by claiming that children (which may or may not be applicable depending upon how old the people in question are), don't have alignments.
The kids thing
is different. If I were going to make a bullet list about underhanded rhetorical tricks Elder Basilisk used, "trying to introduce moral ambiguity by slapping an evil alignment on children" would be the way I'd phrase it.
B. Maintain that, because the person doesn't appear to be a major villain, he isn't evil. (Ignoring the actual descriptions of evil alignments on the basis of "evil alignments are for villains and monsters" and refusing to read any kind of ambiguity into the definition of either villains or monsters).
Elder Basilisk, on the other hand, uses the third definition down in the list at Dictionary.com to give people who are really neutral-but-not-nice the "Evil" description, meaning that a cobbler who cheats on his wife radiates as much evil as a 1-Hit-Dice demon from the depths of the abyss, or a mid-level serial rapist child-murdering rogue.
C. Briefly admit that spells like Misdirection which introduce a small fear of false positives make detect+smite problematic without further information and promptly go back to advocating for detect+smite.
Two different points. I've allowed that the paladin should hold off, based on the preponderance of alignment misdirection spells. We're now arguing the hypothetical, about whether a paladin, if clear on the notion that someone does radiate faint or moderate evilness (and with confirmation from his buddies in the party that such a person isn't just slapped with a 'you're evil' alignment mask), is justified in smiting them. Two different arguments. Personally, as the DM, I'd find the paladin's "see evil, smite evil" simplistic in general terms, since the evil people are usually sneaky, and scouting is a better idea. But we're not arguing "what would be the paladin's best tactical option". That's an entirely different conversation. I've created paladin/rogues. I enjoy paladins who use more subtle means of operation. The argument here is simply "is the paladin justified".
D. Change the subject by introducing a new example.
The new example was attempting to narrow down an actual source of our disagreement -- which, based upon your somewhat disingenuous attacks, was successful, since you agree that the source of our disagreement hinges upon "at what point does somebody's alignment become evil?" We don't agree. You think I haven't read the SRD. I think you're playing word games in an attempt to justify your position. This looks like an "agree to disagree" to me, but if you're going to keep implying that I'm representing my point in a less than truthful manner, then I will in fact keep pointing out the parts where you're sacrificing honesty in an attempt to bend the issue.
Where they stand on the city of Swordpoint is unclear, but it seems that, given their interpretation, there is a strong prima facia case that the rational position for any D&D society governed by good people with the ability to detect evil is to simply walk through the city detecting evil and go from house to house killing anyone who radiates evil.
Haven't commented on Swordpoint -- no idea what it is. But since we believe that, by the book, evil people are
evil, not conflicted and with much gray moral shading, as you believe, then it would stand to reason that a town full of good people would feel justified in taking out the trash. People seem to be using Swordpoint as a parallel for internment camps and abridgment of rights in a misguided attempt to stop crime, but they seem, in my opinion, to be doing so in a somewhat misguided attempt to draw a parallel with current political events (which I won't touch with a ten-foot pole):
If we accept the Tacky/Quas definition of what would give people the evil alignment in D&D, then anyone who is
evil will have committed, with intent, numerous evil actions, and will be intent upon committing more, or willing to commit more as the opportunity arises. This is not a case where people's religious beliefs or past history is going to unfairly get them discriminated against. The only judgment in this situation comes from the gods, who set up the world such that people radiate evil at a certain level of moral badness. And in D&D, morality is not subjective -- evil people are actively evil, not "good from another perspective". If people had a past history of evil but have sincerely changed their ways, then they won't radiate evil anymore. By the Tacky/Quas definition of evil, then, the people who radiate evil, and who continue to radiate evil after spells have been cast to verify that this isn't a curse or trick placed by somebody else, are not morally gray people -- they're evil. They're either dangerous accidents waiting to happen or nasty folks who are going to do
evil stuff to other people.
Now, I don't think that Swordpoint should kill people, because of something I specifically said earlier -- that redemption is a great potential option in situations where the paladin clearly has the upper hand. If one lone evil guy walks into a town full of paladins, the paladins have the ability -- and, by dint of their code of honor, the responsibility -- to use lesser force on the lone evil guy. Again, because of the definition I'm using, the cruel professor and the schoolyard bully don't fall into my definition of evil, so I wouldn't have those people arrested -- but a petty thief might be a good candidate for learning the error of his ways. The professor and the schoolkid could be taught a lesson by the paladins in town, though, if the paladins catch them in their behavior. A stern lecture about the uses and abuses of power might be a good way to keep people from turning to evil.
So, would I personally want to live in the hypothetical city of Swordpoint? From the little I know of it (ruled by paladins?), yes, because this isn't the same as being ruled by Catholics or Fundamentalist Christians or Muslims. In the D&D world, paladins of all different good and neutral faiths might differ on day-to-day matters, but they're all going to agree on evil when they see it -- a paladin of the god of chastity might
dislike the sight of two young people going off to frolic, and he might even be inclined to give a lecture on the subject, but he will know for a
fact that such behavior is
not evil, so, in a campaign world based on the rules as written, he wouldn't abuse his power or attempt to force his personal beliefs on an unwilling audience (beyond simple persuasion in a discussion, which is reasonable in most cities) -- except for the "don't be
evil" bit, because that's the one bit that is not subjective and open to misinterpretation. Every paladin of every faith (assuming core-book paladins who are all LG) will see the same person as radiating the same evil, even if one is a paladin of the NG goddess of love and one is a paladin of the LG god of rulership and one is the paladin of the LN goddess of vengeance.
If Swordpoint is all paladins of one faith who, beyond simply saying "don't be evil", are trying to push their own system of non-alignment-specific values upon the populace, then the paladins are in danger of losing their abilities. That's a different case.
However, no amount of argument seems likely to persuade them since the conclusion of their argument is in the premise. If only people who deserve smiting detect as evil then it will always be right to smite evil.
Pretty much.
This is clearly seen in the supposedly similar example of the orcslayer.
Premise 1: The orcslayer can detect orcs.
Premise 2: The half-orc detects as an orc.
Conclusion: The orcslayer has an obligation to smite the half-orc.
I don't consider that similar. Not all orcs are evil, and thus, not all orcs deserve smiting. I don't see a paladin as somebody who wanders the streets mowing people down, because I don't see that many people as evil.
That conclusion only follows if you add premise 2.5: All orcs deserve to be slain.
Agreed. If you think that you can radiate evil without deserving to be punished at all, then the entire premise falls apart. Hence, disagreement, and apparently, the necessity for personal attacks and disingenuous rhetorical devices.
WRT the Holy Sword argument, I don't think the fact that first level evil NPCs holding a holy sword will die demonstrates that all evil deserves to die. I think it demonstrates that the writers of D&D didn't consider all of the ramifications of giving negative levels...
Hah! Hadn't caught the Wight bit in this edition. That's awesome. "Dude, quit handing the villagers your holy sword. About a third of them keep dying, and then we have to kill wights the next time we ride back through town..."
